-  e  - 


Vt>AVVt/y 

.^^•S^L^ 

LIBRARY    OK 


> 


•:  fBalbone  M.  ©raham  i 

.> 


Date 

}'nl 

~(j nfrcd Price,  $. 

PI.KASE  READ,  REMEMBER    AND    RETURN. 


§ 

^v^ 


GIFT   OF 


I 


A  HANDBOOK 


OF 


BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


UNIFORM  WITH  'SCIENTIFIC  AND  LITERARY 
BIBLE  DIFFICULTIES.' 


NEW  EDITION,  tastefully  printed   in  demy  8vo,  and  handsomely 
bound  in  cloth,  price  75.  6d.,  post  free. 

A  HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES; 

OR, 

Uleasumable  <Sxrlntixms  of  -perplexing  things 
in  (Sacrefc  (Scripture. 

Edited  by  Rev.  ROBERT  TUCK,  B.A.  (Lond.),  author 

of  '  First  Three  Kings  of  Israel,'  '  Age  of  the  Great 

Patriarchs,'  etc. 

The  Handbook  of  Biblical  Difficulties  supplies  a  help 
which  all  intelligent  and  devout  Bible  readers  have  long  felt 
the  need  of,  viz.,  a  manual  which  takes  the  various  difficulties 
they  meet  with  in  reading  the  Word  of  God,  and  gives  a 
reasonable  solution  of  them  in  an  intelligible  manner,  without 
evasion  of  that  which  is  difficult,  or  which  may  seem  contra- 
dictory. 

'.  .  .  .  It  supplies  a  distinct  and  widely-felt  want.' — Christian 
Chronicle. 

' .  .  .  .  To  those  who  have  to  teach,  it  will  be  found  very 
useful. ' — Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 

(  Those  who  are  disturbed  by  perplexing  things  in  sacred  Scripture, 
or  desire  to  be  able  to  help  others  whose  minds  are  so  perplexed,  may 
find  assistance  here.' — Church  Sunday  School  Magazine. 

'  A  very  useful  undertaking,  carried  out  in  a  very  creditable  manner. 
The  difficulties  dealt  with  are  real — the  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of 
the  prophets,  the  slaying  of  Sisera  by  Jael,  the  destruction  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  the  like.' — Church  Bells. 


A    HANDBOOK 


OF 


SCIENTIFIC  AND  LITERARY 

BIBLE  DIFFICULTIES; 


OR, 


FACTS  AND  SUGGESTIONS  HELPFUL  TOWARDS 

THE  SOLUTION  OF  PERPLEXING  THINGS 

IN  SACRED  SCRIPTURE,  BEING  A 


SECOND    SERIES 


EDITED    BY 

ROBERT   TUCK,    B.A.    (LoND.), 

AUTHOR  OF 

'FIRST  THREE  KINGS  OF  ISRAEL,'  'AGE  OF  THE  GREAT  PATRIARCHS 
EDITOR  OF  'HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES.' 


'  Now  we  see  through.*  glasr,  darkly.' — or.  PAUL. 


NEW  YORK  : 

THOMAS      WHITTAKER, 

2   AND   3,  BIBLE   HOUSE. 

1891. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

GENERAL  PREFACE      ......         I 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION        .  .  .  .  .4 

1.  THE    BIBLE   AS    LITERATURE  .  .  .  -4 

2.  RECENT    VIEWS    ON    INSPIRATION  .  ,  .8 
INTRODUCTORY    NOTES : 

PECULIARITIES    OF    SACRED    HISTORY                 .                  .  -       I5 
PECULIARITIES    OF    SACRED  HISTORY,  SUMMARY  AND  REVIEW    159 

HISTORY   A    SECONDARY    FEATURE    IN    NEW   TESTAMENT  .    1 68 

PECULIARITIES    OF    BIBLICAL   SCIENCE                     .                  .  .231 

GENERAL   NOTE   ON    HEBREW    SCIENCE                   .                  .  .    238 

GENERAL    NOTE   ON    SCIENTIFIC    FACT   AND    THEORY     .  .241 

UNCERTAINTIES    IN    BIBLE   NUMBERS     .                  .  .401 

PROGRESSIVE    REVELATION    OF    RELIGION             .                  .  .    417 

PECULIARITIES    OF    HEBREW   AND    GREEK    WRITINGS      .  -477 

SECTION  I. 
DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  ANCIENT  HISTORY. 

OLD   TESTAMENT  .  .  .  .  .  .       1 8 

NEW   TESTAMENT  .  .  .  .  .  .    1 68 

SECTION  II. 
DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE. 

SUB-SECTIONS  I 

1.  DIFFICULTIES      RELATED      TO      ASTRONOMY,      ASTROLOGY, 

AND    MAGIC        ......    243 

2.  DIFFICULTIES    RELATED    TO    MEDICAL    SCIENCE     .  -277 

3.  DIFFICULTIES    RELATED    TO    GEOLOGY,    GEOGRAPHY,    AND 

TOPOGRAPHY      ......    305 

4.  DIFFICULTIES    RELATED   TO    NATURAL    HISTORY   .  -337 

5.  DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  ETHNOLOGY  AND  ARCHAEOLOGY    361 

6.  DIFFICULTIES    RELATED    TO    NUMBERS    AND    CHRONOLOGY   406 


«  I   H»»     4      ~~ 


vi  CONTENTS. 


SECTION  III. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  MATTERS  OF  RELIGION  OR 
THEOLOGY. 

PAGE 

OLD    AND    NEW   TESTAMENTS          .  .  .  .  •      -1 


SECTION  IV. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  THE  USAGES  OF  LANGUAGE. 
OLD    AND    NEW    TESTAMENTS          .  .  .  .  -477 


GENERAL  PREFACE. 


THIS  book  is  not  presented  to  the  reader  as  containing  final  judg- 
ments on  any  of  the  topics  introduced  in  it.  It  contains  only  the 
material,  more  or  less  complete,  for  forming  good  judgments.  A 
dogmatic  tone  is  carefully  avoided,  and  a  suggestive  tone  is  anxiously 
and  constantly  sought.  The  Editor's  opinions  are  but  contributions 
towards  the  consideration  of  a  subject.  It  is  not  a  controversial 
work,  and  it  has  no  precisely-defined  theories  to  uphold.  Fairly,  and 
without  prejudice,  the  views  of  writers  of  very  different  schools  are 
represented ;  and  even  the  effort  to  guide  the  reader  to  a  final  judg- 
ment is  kept  within  careful  restraint. 

The  aim  set  before  the  Editor  is  a  very  simple  one,  but  a  practi- 
cally useful  one.  Fresh  information  relating  to  Bible  subjects  has 
largely  accumulated  during  recent  years,  and  new  additions  are  being 
made  every  month.  But  this  information  comes  to  us  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  It  is  often  locked  up  in  books  that  are  only  accessible  to  the 
learned  :  and  the  thousands  of  Bible  readers,  Bible  students,  and 
Bible  teachers,  have  neither  the  time  for  research,  nor  the  ability  to 
select,  from  the  mass  of  material  at  command,  what  may  be  of  real 
value  in  the  elucidation  of  Bible  problems.  The  Editor  has  en- 
deavoured first  to  select  special  topics  of  interest  to  thoughtful  Bible 
readers ;  keeping  in  mind  that  a  subject  may  interest  one  student, 
and  altogether  fail  to  interest  another.  Then  he  has  endeavoured  to 
quicken  inquiry,  and  impel  to  research,  by  suggesting  questions. 
And,  finally,  he  has  sought  to  provide,  and  set  forth  as  succinctly  as 
possible,  what  is  known,  and  what  is  thought,  in  relation  to  the 
matter  treated. 

This  volume  is  the  continuation  and  completion  of  a  scheme,  of 
which  the  first  portion  has  been  published  under  the  title,  '  A  Hand- 
book of  Biblical  Difficulties.'  The  scheme  proposed  to  deal,  in  a 
representative  way,  with  all  the  classes  of  difficulties  which  an  intelli- 

i 


2          HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


gent  reader  might;  he  expected  to  find  in  the  Bible.  The  early 
volume  was  confined  to  the  treatment  of  difficulties  connected  with 
moral  questions,  Eastern  sentiments,  and  the  miraculous  element. 
This  volume  treats  of  the  difficulties  relating  to  History,  Science, 
Ancient  Religions,  Language,  and  Doctrine. 

In  treating  so  many  Bible  questions  under  the  term  '  Difficulties,' 
the  Editor  is  conscious  of  an  objection  that  may  fairly  be  urged.  It 
may  be  said,  that  it  is  not  wise  to  produce  the  impression  that  there 
are  so  many  difficulties  in  God's  Word.  The  disposition  to  find 
excuse  for  not  believing  the  Bible  is  strong  enough  without  being 
encouraged  by  those  who  are  the  friends  of  the  Bible.  To  that  ob- 
jection it  may  be  replied,  (i)  That  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  follow 
closely  on  the  heels  of  those  who  suggest  that  there  are  errors  and 
mistakes  in  the  Sacred  Word.  The  Christian  must  be  at  least  as 
quick  and  skilful  in  defence  as  the  unbeliever  is  in  attack ;  and  the 
Christian  need  never  be  afraid  for  the  whole  truth  to  be  known.  (2) 
The  more  of  these  so-called  'difficulties'  we  gather  together,  the  less  im- 
portance is  seen  to  attach  to  our  inability  to  explain  any  one  of  them; 
because  we  find  out  that  they  belong  to  classes,  and  then  we  can  get 
principles  of  explanation  that  are  quite  satisfactory  when  applied  to 
the  class,  though  we  may  not  be  enabled  to  apply  them  to  some  one 
particular  case.  (3)  Though  the  subjects  introduced  are  called 
1  Difficulties,'  the  term  is  more  correctly  used  of  what  men  think  and 
feel  who  read  the  Word,  than  of  the  Word  itself.  The  difficulties 
may  be,  in  part,  due  to  the  incompleteness  of  the  record,  which  so 
seldom  tells  us  all  we  want  to  know ;  but  they  are  chiefly  due  to  the 
insufficiency,  or  the  incorrectness,  of  our  knowledge,  and  to  the  blind- 
ing influence  of  our  prejudices.  These,  so  often,  first  put  things  into 
the  Word  for  us,  and  then  persuade  us  that  the  difficulties  we  find 
belong  to  the  Word  itself. 

In  the  former  volume  there  was  more  of  opinion  than  of  fact.  In 
this,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  subjects  treated,  there  must  be 
more  of  fact  than  of  opinion.  But  on  no  subject  connected  with 
Bible  History,  or  Science,  or  Criticism,  can  it  be  affirmed  that  the 
*  last  word  has  been  spoken.'  The  monuments,  and  the  buried  cities, 
are  still  yielding  the  materials  for  new  judgments.  Learned  men  are 
still  applying,  as  skilfully  as  they  may,  the  latest  critical  apparatus  ; 
and  all  that  can  be  attained  by  any  of  us,  is  a  good,  reasonable,  work- 
able, but  temporary,  conclusion.  That,  however,  is  a  sufficient  basis 
of  faith,  and  it  should  be  a  sufficient  incentive  to  duty. 

Advanced  students  will  find  this  work  little  more  than  a  reminder 
of  points  of  interest  which  they  have  met  with  in  the  course  of  their 


GENERAL  PREFACE.  3 

researches.  And  those  who  wish  to  pursue  further  any  topic  that  is 
introduced  in  this  volume,  will  readily  find  the  works  of  great 
thought-leaders  in  every  department. 

One  large  class  of  probable  readers  the  Editor  has  endeavoured 
constantly  to  keep  in  mind.  The  Teachers  of  Senior  and  Bible 
Classes  require  to  be  ready  with  an  efficient  answer  to  every  inquiry 
that  may  be  made  by  any  member  of  their  classes.  The  reception 
of  the  former  volume  by  this  particular  class  of  readers  has  been  very 
gratifying ;  and  it  has  made  quite  clear  that  these  volumes  will  meet 
a  distinctly  recognised  want,  and  materially  aid  our  Senior  Class 
Teachers  in  guiding  intelligently  the  questioning,  and  often  the  half- 
sceptical  thoughts,  of  the  young  people. 

The  Editor  has  in  no  case  set  down  anything  that  would  imperil 
the  sense  of  authority  in  God's  Word.  While  endeavouring  to  keep 
abreast  of  all  the  latest  information,  he  regards  very  many  of  the 
results  of  modern  criticism  as  tentative  ;  and  even  thinks  that  some 
of  the  conclusions  from  monumental  relics  have  been  hastily  drawn, 
and  will  come  under  revision.  But  he  considers  that  nothing  is 
gained  by  hiding  from  the  general  view  all  that  is  known,  and  all 
that  is  thought,  in  relation  to  the  Word  of  God.  The  truest  safety  is 
found  in  the  free  ventilation  of  all  subjects.  Men's  minds  are 
variously  constituted,  and  through  the  strife  of  opinion,  the  satisfac- 
tory settings  of  the  truth  may  be  won.  Fear  for  the  Word  of  God  is 
a  feeling  which  the  Editor  has  never  cherished.  To  gain  the  fuller, 
worthier,  and  wiser  knowledge  of  the  Word,  and  of  all  related  to  it, 
and  of  all  that  can  throw  light  upon  it,  has  been  the  great  aim  of  his 
life,  and  the  constant  endeavour  of  long,  hard-working  years. 

May  those  who  use  this  book  find  it  as  helpful  in  the  confirmation 
of  their  faith,  and  in  the  enlargement  of  their  Bible  Knowledge,  as 
the  Editor  has  done  who  has  compiled  it !  Concerning  the  literature, 
and  history,  and  science  of  God's  most  Holy  Word,  we  may  unite  in 
saying — 

'  Let  knowledge  grow  from  more  to  more.' 


I 2 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION. 


THE  BIBLE  AS  LITERATURE. 

WE  are  now  becoming  familiar  with  the  statement  that  our  Bible 
has  its  place  in  the  world's  Literature.  But  many  persons  are  yet 
unable  to  admit  that  it  may  be  studied  as  one  of  the  world's  books, 
apart  from  its  higher  purpose,  as  the  authorized  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God,  and  the  duties  of  man.  There  are  multitudes  who  have 
studied  it  as  the  Sacred  Book ;  there  will  always  be  some  who  can 
find  in  it  no  more  than  one  of  the  World's  Classics ;  an  ordinary 
book  of  Ethics,  and  History,  and  Poetry,  and  Philosophy.  But  why 
may  not  those  who  regard  the  Bible  as  the  inspired  book  of  morals 
and  religion,  willingly  learn  all  they  can  from  those  who  study  the 
Word  from  a  strictly  literary  point  of  view  ?  If  we  say  that  it  is  litera- 
ture, and  much  more,  we  may  surely  be  willing  to  learn  all  we  can 
from  those  who  are  skilled  in  literature.  Writers  like  Renan  do  not 
occupy  our  standpoint,  nor  can  they  see  what  we  can  see ;  but  we 
should  be  foolish  indeed  if  we  refused  to  learn  all  Renan,  and  similar 
authors,  can  teach  us,  so  far  as  they  can  go. 

Dr.  H.  M.  Thompson,  Bishop  of  Mississippi,  states  in  plain  and 
significant  terms  the  position  which  is  now  commending  itself  to  in- 
telligent and  educated  persons.  '  If  God  is  to  give  a  revelation  of 
Divine  knowledge  to  man,  it  must  begin,  being  what  man  is,  under 
limitations.  It  must  be  given  in  human  speech.  There  is,  therefore, 
the  Divine  Essence — the  revelation  ;  and  the  human  clothing  of  the 
revelation — human  words.  The  Divine  Essence  is  always  the  same. 
The  human  expression  must  necessarily  vary.  Also,  the  human  ex- 
pression may  be  inadequate,  or  even  erroneous.' 

Now  the  term  literature,  as  applied  to  the  Bible,  concerns  only  the 
human  form  in  which  the  Book  comes  to  us.  It  is,  we  know,  in  a 
special  and  unique  sense,  a  Book  by  itself;  but  it  is  also  a  Book  taking 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION.  5 

rank  among  other  books,  the  product  of  human  minds  ;  composed 
according  to  the  knowledge  and  literary  skill  of  different  times  and 
national  conditions.  It  may  surely  be  subjected  to  examination 
according  to  ordinary  literary  rules.  Why  should  we  fear  to  submit 
it  to  such  testings  ?  It  has  pleased  God  to  employ  human  minds 
with  their  particular  furniture  of  knowledge  ;  and  we  are  only  follow- 
ing along  God's  own  line  when  we  try  to  ascertain  the  limitations  of 
human  faculty,  and  the  extent  of  human  knowledge,  as  found  in  the 
Sacred  Book. 

Our  minds  are  often  confused  because  the  distinction  between 
Revelation  and  Inspiration  is  not  precisely  drawn.  'The  word 
Revelation  stands  for  the  Act  of  God  in  making  truth  known  to  men, 
and  then,  in  a  secondary  sense,  for  the  truth  itself  which  is  thus 
made  known.  Inspiration  is  the  name  of  the  special  Divine  influ- 
ence under  which  the  writers  of  the  Bible  worked.  We  speak  of  the 
Revelation  of  God  in  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Inspiration  of  the  writers 
of  the  Bible.  In  order  to  understand  the  questions  which  have  been 
raised  on  these  two  subjects,  it  is  important  that  we  should  dis- 
criminate between  them  in  thought,  but  in  fact  they  are  closely  con- 
nected. It  is  the  association  of  the  two  that  gives  its  supreme  value 
to  the  Bible.  This  is  recognised  as  a  book  of  unique  character, 
because  it  is  an  inspired  record  of  a  Divine  revelation? 

Without  in  any  sense  denying  or  limiting  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible  writers,  we  may  recognise  the  further  truth,  that  such  Divine 
influence  as  may  be  called  '  inspiration '  rests  upon  the  readers  of  the 
record  as  truly  as  upon  the  writers  of  it.  If  God  was  pleased  to 
speak  to  men  through  lives.  He  can  speak  to  us  through  the  records 
of  lives  as  we  read  them. 

.Perhaps  one  greatest  hindrance  is  found  in  the  notion  that  prevails 
among  us,  that  God  is  more  present  in  what  we  regard  as  superhuman 
events  than  in  what  we  regard  as  human  ;  more  present  in  the  extra- 
ordinary than  in  the  ordinary;  more  present  in  miracle  than  in 
history.  And  yet  this  notion  will  be  easily  dispelled  by  careful 
thinking.  The  child-times  of  the  world  make  much  of  wonders  and 
portents.  The  manhood  of  the  world  finds  God  in  daily  life ;  sees 
Him  to  be  far  greater  when  He  gives  to  every  living  thing  its  meat 
in  due  season,  than  when,  for  a  purpose,  He  satisfies  5,000  with  five 
loaves.  It  would  be  wise  for  us  to  culture  quickness  of  observation, 
so  that  we  may  see  God  in  Nature,  in  Providence,  in  history,  in  life, 
and  then  this  God-awakening  attention,  and  illustrating  Himself  some- 
times^ in  miracle  and  wonder. 

If  we  could  fully  accept  the  idea  that  our  Bible  is  literature,  we 


6          HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

should  be  able  readily  to  settle  the  difficulties  that  are  connected 
with  science.  We  should  then  see  that  literature  can  do  no  more 
than  reflect  the  ideas  of  the  age  in  which  it  is  produced.  We  can 
see  how  strange,  to  us,  would  be  the  scientific  setting  of  a  thousand 
or  two  thousand  years  ago  ;  but  we  do  not  so  readily  see  how  strange, 
how  ridiculous,  to  the  people  who  lived  two  thousand  years  ago  would 
have  been  books  written  in  the  scientific  setting  of  this  nineteenth 
century.  How  useless,  how  mischievous,  how  subversive  of  the 
Divine  order,  would  have  been  Bible  references  to  the  earth  going 
round  the  sun,  to  protoplasm,  evolution,  gas,  or  telephones  !  Science 
means  the  knowledge  of  a  material  world  which  man's  faculties  enable 
him  to  gain,  and  it  is  necessarily  a  progressive  thing ;  its  character- 
istics vary  in  different  ages  and  climes.  The  most  universally-received 
conclusions  of  to-day  may  be  dispelled  by  the  enlarged  knowledge 
and  keener  criticism  of  to-morrow. 

What  things,  then,  are  in  evidence  concerning  the  literary  character 
of  the  Old  Testament  ?  In  the  appendix  to  a  Teachers'  Bible  may 
be  found  these  sentences :  '  The  Old  Testament  consists  of  the 
sacred  literature  of  the  Jews.'  '  The  Bible  is  a  work  of  literature, 
not  a  manual  of  scientific  theology.'  We  need  not,  then,  be  afraid 
to  say  that  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch 
onwards,  is  simply  the  literature  of  the  Jews ;  sacred  because  the 
Jews  were  a  sacred  people,  sacred  because  God  was  pleased  to  make 
that  literature  conserve  the  primary  principles  of  natural  religion  for 
humanity,  preserving  them  as  the  foundation  on  which  the  spiritual 
religion  of  Christ  could  be  reared  when  the  fulness  of  times  had 
come. 

This  volume  is  prepared  with  the  prevailing  idea  that  the  whole 
world  is  God's ;  science  is  God's ;  history  is  God's ;  philosophy  is 
God's ;  art  is  God's ;  literature  is  God's ;  the  Bible  is  God's ;  man  is 
God's ;  and  every  faculty  and  endowment  of  man's  is  God's.  In 
place  of  finding  God  only  in  the  Bible,  we  would  find  God  there  and 
everywhere  ;  and  wherever  He  is,  we  are  sure  He  will  be  supplement- 
ing or  correcting  men,  setting  men  straight,  sometimes  leaving  man  to 
his  free  experiment,  and  sometimes  helping  him  by  revelations. 

We  shall  also  take  this  view.  What  we  call  a  man's  errors  may  be 
but  the  limited  range  of  knowledge  of  his  age.  If  a  man  is  true  to 
his  times  God  does  not  interfere  with  him,  and  give  him  the  know- 
ledge which  will  be  gained  by  men  in  some  later  time.  A  man  can 
only  serve  his  generation  aright  by  being  en  rapport  with  it.  Each 
age  is  a  step ;  from  it  the  world  gets  power  to  step  up  higher.  And 
it  is  quite  enough  if  it  be  a  true  step  at  the  time.  We  learn  by  seeing 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION.  7 

exactly  what  men  thought,  and  felt,  and  knew,  and  did  at  each 
stage;  we  are  helped  by  seeing  how  kin  these  Bible  men  and 
women  were  even  to  the  moral  sentiments  of  the  ages  in  which  they 
lived. 

It  is  true  that,  in  the  spheres  of  morals  and  religion,  we  find  Divine 
corrections  ;  but  they  were  only  corrections  within  the  limited  spheres 
and  capacities  of  the  times  in  which  they  were  given.  No  teacher 
would  think  of  correcting  the  mistake  of  a  boy  by  giving  that  boy 
the  very  highest  knowledge  that  the  teacher  had  himself  gained.  He 
corrects  the  boy  by  giving  knowledge  that  is  just  beyond  the  boy's 
present  attainment.  In  many  things  Moses  carries  on  Arab  and 
Egyptian  notions  and  customs ;  but  God  secures  a  higher  tone  and 
character  for  Moses'  adaptations,  raises  such  things,  and  makes  them 
serve  spiritual  purposes. 

What,  then,  do  we  propose  in  this  our  treatment  of  literary  and 
scientific  Bible  difficulties  ?  The  constant  and  close  relation  of  God 
to  all  the  contents  of  the  Bible  will  be  jealously  preserved.  We  shall 
reverently  inquire,  by  a  careful  consideration  of  the  facts,  what  God 
has  been  pleased  to  do,  and  how  He  has  been  pleased  to  do  it. 
Common-sense  is  God's,  and  we  shall  bring  it  to  bear  on  the  Bible 
records,  and  on  the  solution  of  Bible  difficulties  ;  and  so  we  may 
hope  to  bring  the  Sacred  Book  into  closer  and  more  human  relations 
with  us. 

As  confirming  and  illustrating  our  position,  we  give  the  following 
passage  by  Dr.  R.  Heber  Newton,  of  America : 

*  The  Bible  is  a  series  of  books,  the  extant  national  literature  of 
the  Jewsj  the  Apocrypha  being  included,  and  the  literature  of  the 
Christian  church  in  its  creative  epoch.  As  literature,  these  books 
are,  most  of  them,  noble,  and  worthy  of  immortality,  and  have  been 
the  chief  sources  of  inspiration  to  the  mental  and  moral  life  of  Chris- 
tendom ;  worthy  to  be  called  Sacred  Books. 

'  They  are  in  a  still  deeper  sense  our  Sacred  Books — as  the  literature 
of  the  people  of  religion,  the  race  to  whom  God  gave  the  unique 
mission  of  evolving  ethical  religion,  whom  He  had  endowed  with  a 
specialty  for  religion  and  trained  by  singular  experiences  for  its 
normal  development,  and  from  whom,  as  an  historical  fact,  has 
issued  the  one  religion  which  may  claim  to  have  the  future  in  its 
hands,  the  religion  bodied  in  the  Divine  Man. 

'  The  literature  of  such  a  people  forms  plainly  the  classic  books  of 
religion,  which  are,  as  our  fathers  believed,  the  records  of  a  real  reve- 
lation, though  that  revelation  lay  in  the  historic  and  organic  evolution 
of  Israel's  consciousness,  the  coming  on  of  light  into  the  race.  These 


8          HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

books  are  the  works  of  a  real,  Divine  inspiration,  though  that  inspira- 
tion was  wholly  ethical  and  spiritual,  and  in  nowise  scientific  or 
philosophic,  and  differs  from  other  inspirations  only  in  degree,  not 
kind/ 

II. 
RECENT  VIEWS  ON  INSPIRATION. 

The  various  theories  of  inspiration  were  fully  treated  in  the  intro- 
ductory note  to  the  previous  volume.  Since  then,  decided  advance 
has  been  made  in  the  more  liberal  treatment  of  this  subject.  As 
characteristic  utterances,  we  quote  the  following  from  a  bishop  of  the 
American  Episcopal  Church  :  *  The  doctrine  of  a  verbal  inspiration 
was  never  that  of  the  Church  Catholic';  and  this  passage  taken 
from  the  writings  of  Professor  Elmslie  :  '  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
we  possess  no  early  Hebrew  manuscripts ;  that  the  ancient  transla- 
tions depart  in  the  most  surprising  fashion  from  the  received  Hebrew 
text ;  that  very  many  passages  of  the  latter  cannot  be  construed  so 
as  to  give  a  reasonably  likely  sense ;  that  nearly  all  scholars  admit  in 
numerous  passages  the  existence  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  actual 
original,  or  even  the  certain  loss  of  what  the  inspired  penman  wrote. 
In  a  much  less  degree,  the  same  things  are  true  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment manuscripts,  versions,  and  text,  as  the  unlearned  reader  may 
see  in  part  by  comparing  the  Authorized  English  Version  with  the 
text  and  margin  of  the  Revised  Version.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
confessed  alike  by  believing  and  unbelieving  scholars  that  all  this,  at 
first  sight,  formidable  mass  of  uncertainty  as  to  a  few  passages  of 
moment,  and  innumerable  verbal  details,  has  not,  in  any  appreciable 
degree,  touched  or  modified  the  Scriptural  basis  on  which  rests  our 
belief  in  the  grand  doctrines  of  evangelical  faith.' 

We  are  now  invited  to  deal  with  the  question  of  Bible  inspiration 
after  a  new  method ;  and  we  must  candidly  admit  that  the  proposed 
new  method  is  in  every  way  wiser,  safer,  and  more  reasonable. 

The  old  and  long-established  method  has  been  to  decide  first  of 
all  what  the  Bible  is,  and  then  treat  it  as  being  what  we  have  before- 
hand decided  that  it  is. 

The  new  method  is  to  reserve  all  making  of  theories  about  the 
Bible  until  we  have  carefully  and  reverently  examined  and  studied  it ; 
and  then,  when  the  facts  are  fully  before  us,  we  may  venture  to  form 
a  decision  as  to  what  it  is,  and  a  theory  about  its  inspiration. 

We  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  saying  which  is  the  more  reasonable 
course,  if  the  alternative  be  put  before  us  in  this  form  :  Which  is  the 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION.  9 

wiser  plan,  to  take  a  theory  that  men  have  made,  and  judge  God's  Book 
by  the  man-made  theory,  or  to  take  God's  Book  just  as  He  has  given 
it  to  us,  and  only  when  we  know  it  well  venture  to  make  a  theory 
about  it  ? 

There  is  much  in  the  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton's  recent  book  on  *  Inspi- 
ration and  the  Bible '  which  we  should  have  to  criticise  somewhat 
severely.  We  more  especially  object  to  the  magnifying,  and  even 
creating,  of  difficulties  and  contradictions,  through  unwillingness  to 
recognise  common-sense  and  familiar  explanations.  In  the  treatment 
of  a  composite  book,  such  as  our  Bible  is,  everything  depends  on  the 
bias  of  mind  with  which  it  is  approached,  and  it  is  at  once  truer  and 
healthier  to  approach  it  with  the  expectation  that  its  variations,  and 
apparent  contradictions,  have  some  natural  and  simple  solution. 

But  the  general  position  which  Mr.  Horton  takes  is  that  which  is 
taken  by  reverent  thought-leaders  both  in  England,  the  Continent, 
and  America ;  and  it  will  receive  general  acceptance  from  Christian 
people  as  they  become  familiarized  with  it.  It  is  the  modern  form 
in  which  devout  minds  will  apprehend  the  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  subversive  only  of  that  particular  form  of  the  truth  of 
Inspiration  which  is  known  as  '  Verbal]  and  which  can  only  be  held 
in  face  of  facts  which  abundantly  disprove  it,  and  are  patent  to  every 
unprejudiced  student. 

Mr.  Horton  says :  *  To  the  question,  then,  What  is  Inspiration  ? 
we  have  to  answer,  Precisely  that  which  the  Bible  is.  But  when  once 
this  simple  truth  is  realized,  and  cleared  from  all  the  illusions  of 
false  ideas  which  have  been  the  growth  of  centuries,  we  find  the  task 
which  lies  before  us  is,  though  arduous  and  long,  yet  full  of  hope  and 
promise.  Relieved  from  the  incubus  of  a  big  falsity,  we  can  turn 
joyfully  to  the  discovery  of  the  truth.  To  find  out  what  is  the  con- 
tent of  the  term  Inspiration,  we  must  set  to  work  earnestly  and  dili- 
gently to  find  out  what  the  Bible  actually  is.  Instead  of  being 
hampered  in  all  our  inquiries  by  a  foregone  conclusion,  and  fright- 
ened from  a  candid  investigation  of  fact  by  the  fear  lest  the  fact 
should  shatter  our  theory  of  Inspiration,  we  go  to  form  our  theory  of 
Inspiration  from  an  examination  of  the  facts.  To  use  the  language 
of  Logic,  our  inquiry  becomes  Inductive  instead  of  Deductive ;  it  is 
Positive  instead  of  Metaphysical.  The  time,  then,  to  formulate  a 
doctrine  of  Inspiration  is  when  we  have  fairly  and  freely  and  fully 
investigated  all  that  the  Inspired  Volume  contains  ;  only  then  can  we 
draw  together  the  varied  phenomena,  and  attempt  to  give  an  idea  of 
the  term,  not  merely  by  example,  but  by  definition.' 

It  is  impossible  to  object  to  this  way  of  presenting  our  duty  in  re- 


io       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

lation  to  the  question  of  Inspiration.  Nothing  can  honour  the  Bible 
more  than  to  shake  ourselves  free  from  men's  opinions  about  it,  and 
consult  it  ourselves,  and  see  what  it  has  to  say  for  itself.  It  is  pre- 
cisely this  work  which  this  volume  on  *  Bible  Difficulties '  seeks  to 
aid.  It  confidently  offers  guidance  in  some  of  the  by-ways  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  the  assurance  that  its  help  will  move  some  hindrances  out  of 
the  way  of  an  intelligent  and  reverent  apprehension  of  the  fact,  that 
*  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man ;  but  men  spake  from 
God,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

As  we  have  still  to  combat  the  rigid  theory  of  '  Verbal  Inspiration,' 
which  has  gained  so  firm  a  hold  on  the  Christian  mind,  and  still  to 
try  and  replace  it  with  the  more  Scriptural  and  truthful  view,  we  may 
remind  our  readers  of  certain  calm,  judicious,  and  suggestive 
sentences,  penned  by  the  late  Frederick  Myers,  M.A.,  of  Keswick. 
'The  more  rigid  Theory,  which  is  more  popularly  received,  and 
which  holds  that  there  is  no  separable  human  element  in  the  Bible — 
that  its  several  books  not  only  contain  the  Word  of  God,  but  are  con- 
stituted of  the  Words  of  God,  and  of  them  alone,  and  that  all,  there- 
fore, is  throughout  of  equal  and  supreme  authority — this  is  a  belief 
which  involves  in  it  many  difficulties  and  disadvantages.  By  dis- 
allowing any  human  element,  or  any  condescending  adaptation,  we 
are  deprived  at  once  of  much  feeling  of  sympathy  with  the  writers 
of  the  Bible — as  in  such  case  they  become  but  as  mere  Instruments 
rather  than  Agents  of  the  Supreme — and  we  are  put  out  of  harmony 
with  what  we  think  we  see  to  be  the  condition  of  God's  dealings  in 
all  other  parts  of  His  influence  on  man  that  we  know  of ;  we  find 
broken  that  chain  of  analogies  which  we  appear  able  to  trace 
throughout  the  varied  economy  of  His  educational  processes ;  and 
thus  a  preliminary  difficulty — the  source  of  other  consequent  diffi- 
culties in  detail  almost  innumerable — is  introduced,  which,  if  gratui- 
tous, is  certainly  unwise.  But  not  only  this  :  we  are  henceforth  ex- 
posed to  attacks  of  criticism  quite  countless  and  endless  :  and  our 
faith  is  ever  liable  to  rude  shocks,  if  not  more,  at  each  fresh  difficulty 
which  can  be  raised  as  to  any  sentence,  or  even  word,  throughout 
documents  extending  over  a  period  of  the  ancient  history  of  man  for 
fifteen  centuries  and  more.  The  Literalist  depending  much  on  par- 
ticular passages  and  on  certain  expressions  being  of  one  form  and  not 
of  another,  is  in  continual  danger  of  having  the  large  inferences  which 
his  system  allows  and  even  requires  him  to  erect  upon  them  brought 
to  the  ground  by  a  progressive  scholarship.  The  fearful  anxieties 
which  have  been  caused  to  those  who  maintained  such  opinions, 
even  in  our  days,  by  the  Progress  of  Science,  ought  not  to  be  readily 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION.  n 

forgotten  by  themselves,  and  will  not  be  so  by  others  :  and  though 
now  gradually  these  are  subsiding  everywhere,  they  ought  not  to  be 
allowed  to  do  so  wholly,  without  leaving  us  the  lesson  of  the  falli- 
bility of  even  the  devoutest  dogmatism. 

'  And  what  have  been  historically  the  advantages  of  the  more  rigid 
Theory  ?  Has  the  result  which  has  attended  the  assertion  of  it  been 
such  as  to  satisfy  any  thoughtful  mind,  or  to  gratify  any  religious 
one  ?  Has  it  prevented  controversies  ?  or,  rather,  has  it  not  given 
rise  to  them  more  abundantly  ?  Does  it  solve  any  of  those  great 
difficulties  which  have  been  common  to  all  ages  ?  Has  it  not  intro- 
duced new  ones?  Does  it  not  rather  ignore  the  anxieties  of  the 
most  earnest,  and  contradict  the  acquisitions  of  the  most  enlight- 
ened ?  Has  it  even  secured  to  the  most  simply  devout  any  theoretic 
unanimity  ?  or  what  result  is  there  which  it  has  accomplished  which 
might  not  have  been  accomplished  by  a  less  rigid  theory,  and  may  not 
yet  be  ?  Almost  every  difficulty  which  is  presented  by  the  less 
definite  Theory  is  presented  also  by  that  which  is  the  most  so,  and 
the  history  of  Exposition  testifies  most  clearly  that  there  are  very 
few  who  hold  the  strict  theory,  who  are  not  compelled  to  make 
practical  relaxations  of  exposition  which  impair  the  consistency  of 
their  principles,  and  who  do  not  transfer  to  their  Rules  of  Interpre- 
tation a  licence  which  amounts  to  an  equivalent  for  what  elsewhere 
they  are  anxious  to  deny.' 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  find  what  we  regard  as  the  true  theory,  or 
view,  of  the  Inspiration  of  God's  Word,  more  soberly,  more  con- 
cisely, or  more  satisfactorily  stated  than  by  Mr.  Myers,  toward  the 
close  of  his  Third  Book  of  '  Catholic  Thoughts.' 

4  Such  persons  are  here  assured  by  one  who  has  studied  the 
writings  of  both  volumes  of  the  Bible,  long  and  often — under  various 
conditions  of  mind,  and  from  points  of  view  as  wide  asunder  as 
possible  for  the  same  object  to  be  retained  in  sight — that  he  believes 
there  is  no  moral  truth  more  certain  than  that  the  Bible  is  as  a  whole 
generically  different  from  all  other  books — and  that  it  has  been 
given  by  the  special  Providence  of  God  to  be  to  men  an  indispens- 
able and  sufficient  Guide  for  them  to  the  Knowledge  and  Love  of 
Himself.  The  New  Testament  appears  to  him,  after  every  fresh  ex- 
amination of  the  criticism  which  has  been  brought  against  it,  to  be 
substantially  a  self-authenticating  Revelation  of  God ;  and  the  Old 
Testament,  after  the  same,  to  be  a  Divinely-provided  Introduction  to 
the  New — truly  prophesying  and  testifying  of  Christ,  and  being  as  a 
Schoolmaster  to  lead  us  unto  Him.  Some  portions,  indeed,  of  the 
Scriptures,  when  taken  separately,  may  appear  imperfect,  but  when 


12        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

carefully  considered  in  their  due  relations,  they  will  be  seen  to  form 
the  terms  of  a  series  which  the  Providence  of  God  has  surely  super- 
intended. To  one  thus  viewing  them,  there  will  eventually  disclose 
itself  a  Unity  of  Plan  and  of  Spirit  pervading  the  whole  Bible  from 
Genesis  to  Revelations — binding  both  volumes  into  one,  and  develop- 
ing a  scheme  which  surely,  yet  naturally — with  continual  apparent 
frustration  indeed  of  immediate  processes,  but  with  certain  progress 
towards  the  accomplishment  of  its  ultimate  aim — proves  itself  Divine : 
for  nothing  can  well  be  conceived  more  self-evidently  under  more 
than  Mortal  Governance  than  that  which  equably  develops  itself, 
and  forms  itself  into  one  living  and  growing  Whole,  during  a  period 
which  includes  within  it  some  fifty  generations  of  mankind.  Viewed 
as  thus  unfolding  itself,  with  perpetual  fresh  increase  of  vitality  for  so 
long,  and  when  ceasing  to  grow,  giving  birth  to  a  Dispensation  of 
things,  the  full  significance  of  which  we  feel  to  be  yet  inexhaustible, 
the  Bible  cannot  but  appear,  notwithstanding  the  fullest  recognition 
of  its  human  elements,  a  Book  emphatically  Divine—  such  as  there  is 
not  elsewhere  on  earth ;  different  not  only  in  degree,  but  in  kind 
from  all  others  ;  and  one  which,  when  rightly  read,  can  do  what  none 
other  can — make  men  wise  unto  salvation.' 

Careful  attention  to  these  wise  words  should  convince  us  that  a 
full  and  reverent  recognition  of  the  Inspiration  of  God's  Word  is 
not  in  any  way  dependent  on  our  acceptance  of  a  hard  and  fast 
theory,  which  has  never  been  more  than  the  dogma  of  a  school : 
never  the  belief  of  the  Catholic  and  Universal  Church. 

Such  a  Divine  presidency  over  the  formation  of  the  Sacred  Book, 
and  such  a  Divine  direction  of  all  its  contents  to  the  securing  of  pre- 
determined moral  and  religious  ends,  as  Mr.  Myers  thus  devoutly 
recognises,  we  also  admit,  and  commend  to  the  serious  consideration 
of  our  readers.  With  such  an  apprehension  of  Divine  Inspiration 
they  may  reasonably  be  satisfied.  Such  Inspiration  will  be  found 
underlying  our  treatment  of  the  various  perplexities  of  the  Word  in 
this  book  on  '  Bible  Difficulties. ' 

Henry  Ward  Beecher  represents  a  somewhat  different  school  of 
thought.  He  says  that  the  '  Divine  Revelation,  interpreted  by  Evolu- 
tion, will  free  the  Scriptures  from  fictitious  pretensions  made  by  men, 
from  clouds  of  misconceptions,  and  give  to  us  the  Book  as  a  clear, 
shining  light,  instead  of  an  orb  veiled  by  false  claims  and  worn-out 
philosophies.'  He  thinks  that  the  '  Bible  has  been  held  in  captivity 
by  an  untrue  and  unwarranted  theory  of  inspiration,  which  runs  it 
against  a  thousand  obstacles,  and  well-nigh  leads  the  commentators 
into  intellectual  dishonesty.  Men  have  ignored  the  actual  method  of 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION,  13 

its  growth,  by  laying  wrong  emphasis  upon  its  external  structure,  and, 
above  all,  making  its  exterior  framework — the  historical  mechanism — 
of  more  importance  than  the  thing  that  has  been  secured  within  the 
Scriptures  by  means  of  that  mechanism.  Much  that  may  have  been 
needful  for  the  evolution  and  production  of  the  Bible  ceases  to  be 
needful  for  our  faith  in  it,  when  it  has  been  produced.' 

Mr.  Wilson,  of  Clifton  College,  deals  with  the  right  Christian  atti- 
tude towards  definitions  of  Inspiration  in  a  very  striking  way,  in  his 
volume  of  lectures.  He  begins  by  contrasting  the  extreme  reticence 
not  of  one  Christian  Church  only,  but  of  nearly  all  the  greater 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  to  the  true  definition  of  Inspira- 
tion, with  the  desire  of  Secularists  and  Agnostics  so  to  define  it  that 
they  may  confute  the  Christian  revelation,  as  it  were,  out  of  its  own 
mouth.  He  contrasts  impressively  the  language  of  two  different 
authorities  on  this  question.  One  of  these  says,  '  The  purely  organic 
(i.e.,  mechanical)  theory  of  Inspiration  rests  on  no  Scriptural  authority, 
and,  if  we  except  a  few  ambiguous  metaphors,  is  supported  by  no 
historical  testimony.  It  is  at  variance  with  the  whole  form  and  fashion 
of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  destructive  of  all  that  is  holiest  in  man  and 
highest  in  religion.'  The  other  authority  says,  '  It  will  not  do  to  say 
that  it  [the  Bible]  is  not  verbally  inspired.  If  the  words  are  not  in- 
spired, what  is  ?'  And  then  Mr.  Wilson  explains  that  the  former 
authority,  who  protests  so  strongly  against  verbal  inspiration  as  incon- 
sistent with  historical  testimony  and  fatal  to  what  is  highest  in  religion, 
is  Canon  Westcott,  of  Cambridge,  one  of  the  most  learned  of  our 
living  Biblical  critics ;  and  that  the  latter  authority,  who  is  eager  to 
tie  the  Bible  down  to  verbal  inspiration,  is  the  well-known  American 
Secularist,  Colonel  Robert  Ingersoll,  who  really  contends  for  verbal 
inspiration  as  the  only  intelligible  kind  of  inspiration,  in  order  that  he 
may  explode  all  inspiration  altogether.  '  Do  you,  then,  ask  me,'  says 
Mr.  Wilson,  '  can  I  become  a  Christian  without  having  first  believed 
in  the  Divinely-guaranteed  accuracy  of  the  Bible  ?  A  thousand  times 
I  answer,  "Yes."'  And  then  he  proceeds,  in  a  passage  of  great 
beauty  and  wisdom,  to  explain  himself :  '  The  truth  is,  that  the  belief 
in  inspiration  is  not  the  portal  by  which  you  enter  the  temple ;  it  is 
the  atmosphere  that  you  breathe  when  you  have  entered.  You  may 
become  a  Christian — most  men  do  become  Christians — from  finding 
in  the  life  and  sayings  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  something  that 
touches  them,  something  that  finds  them,  something  that  is  a  revela- 
tion of  Divine  love  to  the  human  heart.  Men  find  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  them  dear  and  precious  to  God.  And  then  love  springs  up 
in  them,  and  a  new  life  begins.  They  look  out  on  the  world  with 


i4        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

larger  and  more  loving  eyes.  They  see  God  in  their  brethren,  God 
in  Nature,  and  God  in  their  Bibles.  In  their  Bibles  they  read  of  the 
Christ  whom  they  love.  Those  pages  are  filled  with  power  that  moves 
the  soul ;  never  man  spake  as  this  man ;  never  book  spake  as  this 
book.  And  this,  and  this  only,  is  the  theory  of  inspiration  that 
Christians  must  needs  possess.  It  is  primarily  an  internal  question 
among  believers,  not  an  external  question  with  the  world.  It  has 
little  or  no  relation  to  the  convictions  which  make  and  keep  a  man  a 
Christian.  It  is  not  a  question  which  I  or  anyone  would  care  to  talk 
about  to  one  who  is  not  already  drawn  to  Christ.  It  is  premature  to 
talk  with  others  of  the  exact  limits  of  inspiration.  Let  them  first  read 
the  Gospels,  read  them  as  they  would  read  any  other  book,  with  any 
theory  of  inspiration  or  with  none,  with  the  one  aim  of  learning  the 
truth  about  Jesus  Christ,  of  finding  in  the  book  what  is  pure,  and 
noble,  and  elevating ;  let  them  first  learn  to  admire,  to  love,  to  copy, 
to  serve  Jesus  Christ,  and  I  care  not  what  theory  they  may  form  of 
inspiration ;  they  will  have  got  the  thing,  and  then  they  will  not  be 
over-anxious  to  define  it.' 

Bishop  Goodwin  says  :  '  Attention  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
duly  given  to  the  fact  that  the  word  Inspiration  must,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  be  a  word  used  to  express  a  certain  quality  of  a  book, 
known  upon  other  grounds  to  exist,  and  cannot  rightly  be  regarded 
as  a  word  from  which,  by  a  deductive  process,  the  qualities  of  the 
book  can  be  determined.  A  writer  starts,  for  instance,  with  the 
principle  that  the  Bible  is  inspired — is  the  Word  of  God — is  the 
message  of  God  to  man — or  the  like  ;  and  from  this  principle  under- 
takes to  assert  that  certain  propositions  concerning  it  must  be  true. 
He  says,  for  example,  that  it  cannot  contain  any  statements  contrary 
to  the  truths  of  science,  or  that  it  cannot  contain  historical  errors  as 
to  matters  of  fact,  or  that  it  cannot  contain  internal  discrepancies. 
Now,  I  do  not  say  that  any  one  of  these  characteristics,  declared  to 
be  impossible,  does  in  reality  belong  to  the  Bible  ;  but  I  wish  to 
know  upon  what  principle  anyone  can  venture  to  assert  positively 
that  the  discovery  of  their  existence  strips  the  Bible  of  its  Divine 
character  ?' 

Dr.  D.   W.  Simon,  of  Edinburgh,  writes  :  *  More  or  less  distinctly 

more  distinctly  of  late— all  candid  inquirers  have  confessed  that  there 
was  a  human  as  well  as  a  divine  element  in  the  Scriptures.  The 
Scripture  as  truly  as  Christ  is  divine-human' 

It  is  proposed,  in  this  work  on  'Difficulties,'  to  recognise  fully  what 
is  thus  called  the  '  human  element.' 


HANDBOOK 

OF 


Literary  and  Scientific  Bible  Difficulties. 

SECTION    I. 
DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  ANCIENT  HISTORY. 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 


INTRODUCTORY     NOTE. 

IN  the  selection  of  topics  for  treatment  under  this  heading,  a  very 
comprehensive  .view  of  history  has  been  taken.  It  is  regarded  as 
including  the  legendary  matters  which  precede  history  proper,  the 
identification  of  persons  and  places,  apparent  contradictions  in  his- 
torical statements,  chronological  complications,  diversities  in  the  nar- 
ratives, significance  of  particular  incidents,  explanation  of  elaborate 
details,  and  the  relations  of  the  Sacred  History  to  that  which  has 
long  been  known,  and  that  which  has  recently  been  recovered,  of  the 
history  of  the  nations  surrounding  Israel. 

It  may  be  helpful  if  the  peculiarities  of  the  Sacred  History  are 
briefly  indicated.  It  is  evident  that  the  early  portion  of  Genesis 
must  be  classed  as  legendary,  and,  as  such,  may  be  compared  with 
the  vague  antecedents  of  the  history  of  every  nation.  When  history 
may  be  said  to  begin  with  Abraham,  we  need  to  remember  that,  at 
first,  it  existed  only  as  narratives  retained  in  memory,  and  told  from 
generation  to  generation.  And  when  history  could  be  preserved  in 
writing,  it  was  still  subject  to  the  uncertainties  of  copying  and 
editing. 

We  may  regard  Moses  as  the  Divinely-guided  compiler  of  the 
early  history  from  legendary  materials  which  had  been  preserved  in 
memory  as  folk-lore.  And  for  the  later  history  we  may  find  two 


16         HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

classes  of  writers — those  who  originally  composed  fragments  o 
matters  within  their  knowledge ;  and  those  who,  in  later  time 
threaded  these  fragments  so  as  to  form  an  almost  continuou 
narrative. 

It  is  singular  that  the  Bible  should  never  indicate  any  anxiety  cor 
cerning  the  authorship  of  any  of  the  portions  of  which  it  is  composec 
It  even  seems  that  pride  of  authorship  is  a  modern  invention.     L 
ancient  times  it  was  judged  useful  to  fix  a  great  and  well-knowi 
name  to  a  composite  work,  and  it  was  not  meant  to  imply  that  th« 
man  so  named  was  responsible  for  the  whole  of  the  contents.     Thu: 
David's  name  is  put  to  the  collection  of  national  psalms,  of  which  h( 
only  contributed  a  portion.     Solomon's  name  is  attached  to  the  Bool- 
of  Proverbs,   though  the  book   acknowledges  the  contributions  o; 
others.     Isaiah  appears  to  be  the  author  of  a  book  which  covers  toe 
long  a  space  of  time  for  one  human  life.     We  must  beware  of  taking 
our  modern  notions  of  authorship  and  composition  as  the  basis  on 
which  we  judge  the  origin  and  character  of  the  ancient  writings. 
Due  account  should  be  made  of  the  uncertainty  of  copying,  and  oi 
translation  into  other  languages  ;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
editors  would  exercise  their  judgment  in  the  selection,  arrangement, 
and  fitting  together  of  their  materials.     If  attention  is  paid  to  such 
things,  many  diversities,  discrepancies,  and  apparent  contradictions, 
as  well  as  many  peculiarities  of  language  and  style,  will  receive  a 
simple  and  satisfactory  explanation. 

There  are  some  facts  that  demand  consideration.  If  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch,  it  is  quite  clear  that  he  could  not  have  had  personal 
knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  first  book.  There  is  abundant 
evidence  that  he  had  before  him  various  legendary  narratives,  parts 
of  which,  suiting  his  leading  idea,  he  threaded  into  a  tolerably  con- 
tinuous story. 

It  is  equally  certain  that  the  histories,  from  Joshua  to  the  Captivity, 
as  we  have  them  now,  are  not  original  documents  belonging  to  each 
age,  but  compilations  from  such  documents  as  were  preserved. 
Indeed,  the  histories  give  us  the  names  of  a  variety  of  such  original 
works,  all  of  which  have  been  destroyed.  There  was  a  collection  of 
heroic  poems  known  as  *  The  Book  of  Jasher,'  of  which  extracts  are 
given.  There  were  books  known  as  'The  History  of  Samuel  the 
Seer,'  'The  History  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,' and  'The  History  of 
Gad  the  Seer,'  'The  Acts  of  Solomon,'  'The  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite,'  'The  Visions  of  Iddo  the  Seer,'  'The  Book  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,'  and  '  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles 
of  the  Kings  of  Judah,'  these  latter  being  evidently  State  documents. 


INTRODUCTOR  Y  NOTE.  17 

It  is  seldom  noticed  that  the  Books  of  Samuel  extend  beyond  the 
life  of  Samuel,  and  so  it  is  only  in  a  limited  sense  that  he  was  their 
author.  The  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  must  have  been  written 
by  someone  who  lived  after  the  last  incidents  which  they  narrate, 
and,  if  so,  he  must  have  used  previously-provided  materials.  And  if 
this  point  be  studied,  it  will  be  found  that  a  space  of  some  400  years 
intervenes  between  the  preparation  of  the  earlier  series,  the  Books  of 
Kings,  and  the  later  series,  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  It  is  not  certain 
that  the  same  original  materials  were  used  for  the  compilation  of  the 
two  sets  of  works ;  and  if  two  separate  writers  were  now  to  attempt 
to  form  a  history  of  English  life  400  years  ago  from  the  various  docu- 
ments which  might  be  at  their  command,  they  would  be  sure  to 
produce  similar  diversities  and  apparent  contradictions  to  those  which 
we  find  in  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 

As  to  chronology,  it  is  quite  plain  that  there  was  in  ancient  times 
no  accurate  system  of  dating  events,  and  there  is  a  remarkable 
absence  of  chronological  exactness  in  the  historical  writings  of  the 
Bible. 

These  remarks,  which  will  receive  abundant  illustration  in  the 
treatment  of  the  several  topics  of  this  work,  are  intended  to  keep 
before  the  minds  of  our  readers  that  the  moral  movements  of  the 
people  of  God  are  the  real  subject  of  Divine  revelation,  and  that 
these  are  adequately  and  effectively  presented  in  a  history  which,  so 
far  as  its  mere  details  are  concerned,  is  encompassed  with  the  ordinary 
infirmities  of  human  histories. 

If  any  should  say,  '  Is  there,  then,  no  inspired  element  in  the  actual 
writing  ?  Is  it,  after  all,  only  the  ordinary  record  of  an  extraordinary 
history  ?'  we  may  answer  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Horton :  '  Whoever 
these  unknown  authors  were,  and  we  have  seen  that  the  historical 
books  were  all  anonymous,  we  may  say  of  them  generally,  apart  from 
the  indications  in  the  quoted  authorities,  that  they  were  prophets, 
and  sons  of  the  prophets.  Indifferent  as  they  were  to  historical  con- 
sistency and  chronological  accuracy,  they  were  keenly  alive  to  the 
element  of  revelation  in  the  events  they  were  narrating ;  they,  perhaps 
unconsciously,  selected  their  materials,  and  arranged  them  in  a 
didactic,  an  almost  homiletical,  way.  It  seems  as  if  their  purpose 
was  not  so  much  to  tell  us  what  happened  as  to  emphasize  for  us  the 
lesson  of  what  happened.  It  is  applied  history  rather  than  history 
pure  and  simple;  and  on  this  ground  we  can  understand  that 
tendency  to  irritation  which  critical  historians  sometimes  betray  in 
approaching  it.  It  is,  then,  if  we  may  so  put  it,  history  written  in 
the  prophetic  method.  And  this  remark,  duly  considered,  explains 


i8        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

both  the  defects  and  the  unique  merits  of  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  On  the  one  hand  it  explains  the  indifference  to 
details.  The  prophetic  historian  would  never  dream,  like  a  modern 
scientific  historian,  of  writing  interminable  monographs  about  a  dis- 
puted name  or  a  doubtful  date ;  he  might  even  take  a  story  which 
rested  on  very  doubtful  authority,  finding  in  it  more  that  would  suit 
his  purpose  than  the  bare  and  accurate  statement  of  the  fact  which 
could  be  authenticated.  The  standpoint  of  the  prophetic  historian 
and  of  the  scientific  historian  are  wholly  different ;  they  cannot  be 
judged  by  the  same  canons  of  criticism. 

'  On  the  other  hand,  the  above  distinction  explains  the  element 
which  we  instinctively  feel  marks  this  history  off  from  ordinary  history. 
To  the  prophetic  eye  the  significance  of  all  events  seems  to  be  in 
their  relation  to  the  Will  of  God.  .  .  .  Perhaps,  after  all,  the  one  fact 
of  history  is  God's  work  in  it ;  in  which  case  the  scientific  histories, 
with  all  their  learning  and  with  all  their  toil,  will  look  rather  small 
by  the  side  of  these  imperfect  compositions,  which  at  least  saw  vividly 
and  recognised  faithfully  the  one  fact? 


DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  ANCIENT  HISTORY. 
Identification  of  Goliath. 

i  SAMUEL  xvii.  4:  'And  there  went  out  a  champion  out  of  the  camp  of  the 
Philistines,  named  Goliath,  of  Gath,  whose  height  was  six  cubits  and  a  span.' 

Difficulty. — Other  persons  are  called  by  this  name,  and  the  death 
of  a  Goliath  is  elsewhere  attributed  to  one  Elhanan,  a  Bethlehemite. 

Explanation. — It  will  be  well  to  have  before  us  all  the  passages 
that  can  give  light  on  this  difficulty.  The  passage  given  above  is 
the  first  reference  to  Goliath,  and  with  verse  23,  of  the  same  chapter, 
is  probably  the  only  reference  to  the  original  Goliath.  Whether  we 
regard  the  Books  of  Samuel  as  made  up  from  historical  documents 
or  not,  we  must  give  the  writer  credit  for  knowing  what  he  was 
writing  about,  and  not  saying  in  one  place  that  Goliath  was  killed  by 
David,  and  in  another  by  one  Elhanan.  In  2  Sam.  xxi.  .15-22,  an 
account  is  given  of  four  '  sons  of  the  giant ;'  this  could  mean  no 
other  than  the  giant  David  himself  had  slain.  Verse  22  reads: 
*  These  four  were  born  to  the  giant  in  Gath,  and  fell  by  the  hand  of 
David,  and  by  the  hand  of  his  servants.'  This  is  a  succinct  way  of 
saying,  « Goliath  and  his  four  sons  fell  by  the  hand  of  David  and  his 


IDENTIFICA  TION  OF  GO  LI  A  TH.  1 9 

servants.'  If  the  account  be  given  in  precise  detail,  David  slew  the 
father,  and  his  servants,  on  different  occasions,  slew  all  four  sons. 

Now  we  have  the  names,  or  the  descriptions,  of  three  of  these  sons, 
so  that  we  can  identify  them  without  dispute.  Ishbi-benob, 
2  Sam.  xxi.  16;  Soph,  v.  18;  a  nameless  six-fingered  man,  v.  20. 
But  the  third  name  seems  uncertain.  It  is  given  in  verse  19,  and 
in  i  Chron.  xx.  5 ;  these  two  verses  may  be  set  beside  each  other 
as  given  in  the  Revised  Version. 

2  Sam.  xxi.  19 :  'And  there  was  again  war  with  the  Philistines  at 
Gob,  and  Elhanan,  the  son  of  Jaare-oregim  the  Bethlehemite,  slew 
Goliath  the  Gittite,  the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam.' 

i  Chron.  xx.  5  :  *  And  there  was  again  war  with  the  Philistines,  and 
Elhanan,  the  son  of  Jair,  slew  Lahmi,  the  brother  of  Goliath  the  Gittite, 
the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam.' 

There  is  certainly  some  confusion  here.  Let  us  see  how  much  is 
clear. 

1.  Both  the  compiler   of  Samuel,  and   of  Chronicles,   distinctly 
affirm  that  all  the  persons  they  speak  of  as  conquered  and  slain  were 
sons  of  the  giant,  born    to   the   giant   in  Gath.     See  2    Sam.  xxi. 
22  ;  i   Chron.  xx.  8.     Whatever,  then,  may  be  the  confusion  of  the 
names  given,  the  four  persons  in  Samuel,  and  the  three  persons  in 
Chronicles,  were  all  sons  of  the  giant,  and  cannot  be  confused  with 
their  father. 

2.  This   also  is  clear :  the  battle   in   which   Elhanan   conquered 
occurred  at  Gob  (2  Sam.  xxi.  19)  orGezer  (i  Chron.  xx.  4).  Whether 
this  name  '  Gob '  stands  for  '  Gezer '  or  '  Gath,'  one  thing  is  certain — it 
cannot    be    the    same   as    '  Ephes-dammim,'   where    David    fought 
Goliath. 

In  the  passage  as  given  in  Samuel  (A.V.)  the  words  '  the  brother 
of  are  in  italics,  intimating  that  they  are  not  in  the  original,  but 
were  inserted  by  the  translators  in  order  to  make  sense,  and 
harmonize  the  passage  with  the  one  in  Chronicles.  They'  cannot 
be  the  proper  ones  to  insert,  because  verse  22  plainly  asserts  that 
the  man  was  a  son  of  Goliath,  whom  David  slew,  and  not  a  brother. 
There  is  evident  error  in  the  text  i  Chron.  xx.  5 ;  the  same  remark 
applies  to  it.  The  compiler  is  made  to  say,  in  verse  5,  that  Elhanan 
slew  Lahmi,  the  brother  of  Goliath,  and  in  verse  8,  this  Lahmi  was 
one  of  the  sons  born  to  the  giant  in  Gath.  It  is  evident  that  the 
words  '  Lahmi,  the  son  of,'  have  slipped  out  of  the  text  in  Samuel ; 
and  '  brother '  has  taken  the  place  of  '  son '  in  the  text  of  Chronicles. 
We  then  have  the  four  sons  of  the  original  Goliath  fully  accounted 
for,  Ishbi-benob,  Saph,  Lahmi,  and  the  'six-fingered,'  and  their 


ao       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

deaths  were  brought  about  at  the  hands  of  Abishai,  Sibbechai, 
Elhanan,  and  Shimea. 

All  writers  agree  that  the  text  of  these  two  passages  is  imperfect, 
but  there  is  difference  of  opinion  as  to  which  should  be  regarded  as 
the  corrective  of  the  other.  In  favour  of  correcting  Samuel  from 
Chronicles,  we  have  Michaelis,  Kennicott,  Dathe,  Keil,  and  Thenius, 
In  favour  of  correcting  Chronicles  from  Samuel,  we  have  Ewald  and 
Bertheau.  Ewaltfs  suggested  explanation  is  based  on  the  purest 
conjecture,  and  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  theories 
are  invented  when  common  sense  would  suffice  to  remove  the 
difficulty.  He  says  :  '  We  know  from  one  of  the  earliest  accounts  that 
Goliath  of  Gath — the  giant  "  whose  spear-shaft  was  like  a  weaver's 
beam " — was  really  slain  by  a  certain  Elhanan,  the  son  of  Jair  of 
Bethlehem;  and,  indeed,  according  to  the  same  authority,  this 
event  did  not  take  place  until  David  had  already  become  king. 
Since  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  giant  so  described  is  the  same  whose 
name  is  now  introduced  in  David's  early  history,  we  must  suppose 
that  his  name  was  transferred  to  the  Philistine  whom  David  slew 
(who  is,  moreover,  generally  called  simply  "the  Philistine,")  when  his 
proper  name  had  been  lost.  This  would  be  all  the  more  likely  to 
happen,  because  Elhanan,  like  David,  was  a  native  of  Bethlehem.' 

Another  attempt  to  get  over  the  difficulty  has  been  made.  Jerome 
suggested  that  Elhanan  may  have  been  another  and  an  earlier 
name  of  David.  It  is  enough  to  reply  that  he  is  distinctly  classed 
with  David's  generals  Abishai,  Sibbechai,  and  Shimea. 

R.  F.  Norton,  in  his  work  '  Inspiration  and  the  Bible,'  uses  the 
difficulty  of  identifying  Goliath  to  support  his  theory  of  various  frag- 
mentary sources  for  the  Scripture  histories.  He  regards  the  story  of 
David's  killing  Goliath  as  a  distinct,  and  interpolated,  narrative.  He 
says :  '  Read  i  Sam.  xvi.  14-23  and  then  go  on  at  xviii.  6,  and  you 
see  you  have  a  straightforward  narrative ;  the  section  xvii.  to  xviii. 
5,  appears  plainly  as  a  separate  piece,  coming  no  doubt  from  a 
separate  source.  This  interpolated  section  is  one  of  the  most 
conned  and  loved  of  Old  Testament  stories;  but  it  is  certainly 
very  puzzling  to  find  our  author  in  xxi.  19,  informing  us  that 
Goliath  of  Gath  was  killed,  not  by  David  at  all,  but  by  another 
Bethlehemite  named  Elhanan.  The  chronicler  (i  Chron.  xx.  5)  was 
as  puzzled  as  we  are,  and  took  the  liberty  of  altering  the  statement, 
saying  that  Elhanan  slew,  not  Goliath,  but  his  brother.'  Mr.  Horton 
did  not,  we  fear,  seek  for  any  explanation  of  the  confusion,  or  note 
that  the  '  brother '  of  verse  5  is  the  '  son  '  of  verse  8. 

The  only  other  attempted  explanation  to  which  reference  need  be 


THE  PHARAOH  OF  ABRAM'S  DA  YS.  21 

made  regards  Goliath  as  a  family  name,  and  treats  the  several  names 
as  distinctive  of  individual  members.  We  should  therefore  read, 
Ishbi-Goliath,  Saph-Goliath,  Lahmi-Goliath,  etc.  Bishop  Words- 
worth writes  :  '  The  word  "  Goliath  "  means  a  stranger,  an  alien.  It 
may  describe  any  one  of  the  family  of  giants  at  Gath,  the  Anakim,  or 
sons  of  Anak,  the  Philistine  Titans ;  as  Hamor  was  the  name  of  the 
chiefs  of  Shechem,  Abimelech  of  Gerah,  Pharaoh  and  Ptolemy  of 
those  of  Egypt,  Caesar  of  Rome,  and  the  members  of  the  giant  family 
of  the  Cyclops  are  all  called  Cyclopes  by  Homer  and  other  poets.' 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  word  in  Samuel,  '  Bethlehemite,'  which 
is  wanting  in  Chronicles,  is  a  corruption  of  '  Lahmi,  the  brother  (or 
son)  of.' 

The  Pharaoh  of  Ab ram's  Days. 

GENESIS  xii.  15  :  'The  princes  also  of  Pharaoh  saw  her,  and  commended  her 
before  Pharaoh  :  and  the  woman  was  taken  into  Pharaoh's  house.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  decide,  with  any  great  probability,  the 
name  and  dynasty  of  this  Pharaoh  ? 

Answer. — No  certainty  is  attainable.  The  name  *  Pharaoh '  gives 
us  no  help,  as  its  derivation  and  meaning  are  now  well  known. 
M.  De  Rouge*  has  shown  that  the  hieroglyphic  which  is  the  regular 
title  of  the  Egyptian  kings,  signifies  '  the  great  house,'  or  the  *  double 
house,'  and  must  be  read,  Peraa,  or  Perao.  The  identity  of  this 
name  with  Pharaoh  is  admitted  by  Brugsch,  Ebers,  Canon  Cook,  etc. 
How  early  in  Egyptian  history  this  name  was  applied  to  the  reigning 
monarch  cannot  be  known.  It  was  a  title  of  respect,  veiling  the 
person  of  the  monarch  under  the  name  of  his  dwelling,  in  much  the 
same  manner  as  we  include  the  sovereign  and  his  attendants  under 
the  name  of  the  '  Court.' 

Some  have  argued  that  because  Abram,  an  Arab  Sheikh,  found 
favour  in  Egypt,  its  Pharaoh  must  have  been  one  of  the  Hyksos,  or 
Shepherd  Kings,  and  as  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  Pharaoh  of 
Joseph's  time  belonged  to  the  twelfth  dynasty,  the  Pharaoh  of  Abram's 
time  must  have  belonged  to  that  dynasty  or  an  earlier  one. 

'  Very  little  beyond  the  names  of  the  kings  who  belonged  to  the 
sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  dynasties  is  known ; 
and  a  gap  of  about  500  years  occurs  in  the  history,  which  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  to  fill  up  in  detail.  The  first  king  of  the 
twelfth  dynasty  was  called  Amenemha.' 

W.J.  Deane,  M.A.,  in  his  recent  'Life  of  Abraham,'  favours  an 
earlier  date  :  '  To  determine  the  exact  date  of  Abram's  arrival  in  Egypt, 
and  who  was  the  Pharaoh  whom  he  found  upon  the  throne,  is  impos- 


22        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

sible.  Josephus  calls  him  in  one  place  Nechaoh,  and  in  another 
Pharaothes ;  other  Jewish  authorities  name  him  Rikaion  or  Rakaion, 
adding  that  he  came  from  Sinear,  and  obtained  the  royal  dignity  by 
force  and  fraud.  Malala  gives  him  the  name  of  Naracho,  of  which 
Rikaion  seems  to  be  a  corruption,  and  which  is  probably  the  same  as 
the  Nechaoh  of  Josephus.  That  the  Egypt  even  of  that  early  date 
was  a  country  of  vast  importance,  and  of  venerable  antiquity,  is 
certain  from  the  monuments  which  have  survived ;  but  the  obscurity 
of  its  early  annals  has  not  yet  been  cleared  up,  nor  is  the  chronology 
of  its  several  dynasties  accurately  fixed.  But  it  was  probably  between 
the  sixth  and  eleventh  dynasties,  and  during  the  dominion  of  the 
Hyksos,  or  Shepherds,  that  Abram  appeared  in  the  land.' 

Professor  Sayce  takes  the  same  view.  '  The  Middle  Empire,  from 
the  twelfth  dynasty,  did  not  last  long.  Semitic  invaders  from  Canaan 
and  Arabia  overran  the  country,  and  established  their  seat  at  Zoan  or 
Tanis.  For  511  years  they  held  the  Egyptians  in  bondage,  though 
the  native  princes,  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the  south,  gradually 
acquired  more  and  more  power,  until  at  last,  under  Aahmes  or 
Amosis,  founder  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty,  they  succeeded  in  driving 
the  hated  foreigners  out.  It  must  have  been  while  the  Hyksos 
monarchs  were  holding  their  court  at  Zoan  that  Abraham  entered  the 
land.  He  found  there  men  of  Semitic  blood,  like  himself,  and 
speaking  a  Semitic  language.  A  welcome  was  assured  him,  and  he 
had  no  need  of  an  interpreter.' 

Kings  of  the  Hittites. 

2  KINGS  vii.  6 :  '  For  the  Lord  had  made  the  host  of  the  Syrians  to  hear  a 
noise  of  chariots,  and  a  noise  of  horses,  even  the  noise  of  a  great  host :  and  they 
said  one  to  another,  Lo,  the  king  of  Israel  hath  hired  against  us  the  kings  of  the 
Hittites,  and  the  kings  of  the  Egyptians,  to  come  upon  us.' 

Difficulty. — As  the  only  other  Bible  allusions  to  Hittites  refer  to 
the  small  nation  which  formed  one  of  the  Canaanite  nations  that  were 
dispossessed  by  the  Israelites,  this  mention  of  the  Hittites  as  a  distinct 
and  powerful  ?iation  seems  to  be  incorrect. 

Explanation. — This  difficulty  was  seriously  felt  by  all  the  older 
Biblical  writers.  But  it  has  no  more  foundation  than  lack  of  know- 
ledge. That  lack  has  been  quite  recently  supplied,  and  consequently 
the  difficulty  can  now  be  completely  removed.  The  history  of  the 
comments  on  this  text  furnishes  so  severe  a  rebuke  to  the  dogmatic 
spirit,  which  asserts  error  when  adequate  explanation  is  not  at  once 
forthcoming,  that  we  may  give  it  a  careful  consideration. 

Matthew  Henry  says  on  this  verse  :    '  There  was,  for  aught  we 


KINGS  OF  THE  HITTITES.  23 

know,  but  one  king  of  Egypt;  and  what  kings  there  were  of  the 
Hittites  nobody  can  imagine ;  but  as  they  were  imposed  upon  by  that 
dreadful  sound  in  their  ears,  so  they  imposed  upon  themselves  by  the 
interpretation  they  made  of  it.' 

Dr.  Sayce  tells  of  a  distinguished  scholar,  nearly  forty  years  ago, 
who,  selecting  this  passage  for  criticism,  wrote  in  this  way  concerning 
it :  '  Its  unhistorical  tone  is  too  manifest  to  allow  of  our  easy  belief 
in  it.  No  Hittite  kings  can  have  compared  in  power  with  the  King 
of  Judah,  the  real  and  near  ally,  who  is  not  named  at  all  ...  nor  is 
there  a  single  mark  of  acquaintance  with  the  contemporaneous 
history.' 

Even  Dean  Stanley  had  to  write  on  the  subject  without  adequate 
knowledge.  He  says,  'The  Amorites,  or  mountaineers,  occupied  the 
central  and  southern  hills  (of  Palestine)  with  the  Hittites  and  Hivites. 
The  Hittites  belong  to  the  more  peaceful  occupants,  and  their  name 
is  that  by  which  Palestine,  in  these  early  ages,  was  chiefly  known  in 
foreign  countries.' 

Ewald  has  no  idea  of  Hittites,  save  as  one  of  the  small  nations 
inhabiting  Canaan  at  the  time  of  the  Israelite  invasion.  '  The  con- 
trast to  these  highlanders  (the  Amorites)  with  their  strong  castles  is 
furnished  by  the  Hittites,  as  dwellers  in  the  valley,  who  had  different 
employments  and  manners,  and  lived,  wherever  possible,  in  distinct 
and  independent  communities.  We  are  not,  therefore,  surprised  to 
find  them  living  near  the  mountains  wherever  they  could  find  room, 
as  for  instance  in  the  south  near  Hebron,  and  extending  from  thence 
as  far  as  Bethel  in  the  centre  of  the  land.  They  nowhere  appear  as 
warlike  as  the  Amorites,  but  rather  lovers  of  refinement  at  an  early 
period,  and  living  in  well-ordered  communities  possessing  national 
assemblies.  Abraham's  allies  in  war  are  Amorites;  but  when  he 
desires  to  obtain  a  possession  peaceably  he  turns  to  the  Hittites.' 

These  extracts  may  suffice  to  indicate  what  was  known  or  imagined 
concerning  the  Hittites  up  to  quite  recent  years. 

But  by-and-by  it  began  to  be  perceived  that  the  above  text,  and 
similar  references  to  tribes,  or  a  nation,  of  Hittites  (i  Kings  x.  29; 
2  Chron.  i.  17),  and  more  especially  their  association  with  the  'kings 
of  Syria,'  pointed  to  a  people  settled  independently  beyond  Lebanon, 
possibly  on  the  south-eastern  frontier  towards  Arabia. 

When  the  Egyptian  annals  came  to  be  more  fully  known,  and  more 
carefully  examined,  tjiey  were  found  to  refer  to  a  war  with  Hittites, 
and  these  could  not  be  the  petty  tribe  dwelling  in  Canaan.  Egyptian 
pictures,  too,  were  believed  to  represent  Hittites. 

The  way  was  thus  preparing  for  the  most  interesting  and  important 


24       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

discovery  of  modern  times.  It  is  now  known  that  the  Hittites  of 
Palestine  were  only  a  colony,  or  offshoot,  from  a  large  and  strong 
nation  occupying  the  tract  of  North  Syria,  between  the  Euphrates  and 
Orontes.  In  the  thirteenth  century  before  Christ,  as  is  proved  by 
inscriptions  cut  in  the  rocks,  their  power  extended  over  great  part  of 
Asia  Minor.  Carchemish,  Kadesh,  Hamath,  and  Helbon  (or  Aleppo) 
were  their  capitals.  '  They  are  found  among  the  Syrian  enemies  of 
the  Egyptians  in  the  monuments  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty  (about 
B.C.  1300),  and  in  the  early  Assyrian  monuments  they  appear  as  the 
most  powerful  people  of  Northern  Syria,  dwelling  on  both  banks  of 
the  Euphrates  in  the  country  along  its  course  from  Bir  to  Balis.  In 
this  tract  they  formed  a  great  confederacy  under  a  number  of  petty 
kings,  while,  at  the  same  time,  there  is  a  second  confederacy  of  their 
race  further  to  the  south,  which  seems  to  inhabit  the  Anti-Lebanon 
between  Hamath  and  Damascus.'  (Speaker's  Commentary.} 

By  the  Egyptians  the  Hittites  were  called  Kheta,  or  Khata. 
Dr.  Sayce  finds  it  possible  to  speak  of  a  '  Hittite  Empire '  from  the 
time  of  Ramses  II.  He  says  :  '  From  this  time  forward  it  becomes 
possible  to  speak  of  a  Hittite  Empire.  Kadesh  was  once  more  in 
Hittite  hands,  and  the  influence  formerly  enjoyed  by  Egypt  in  Pales- 
tine and  Syria  was  now  enjoyed  by  its  rival.  The  rude  mountaineers 
of  the  Taurus  had  descended  into  the  fertile  plains  of  the  south, 
interrupting  the  intercourse  between  Babylonia  and  Canaan,  and 
superseding  the  cuneiform  characters  of  Chaldaea  by  their  own 
hieroglyphic  writing.  From  henceforth  the  Babylonian  language 
ceased  to  be  the  language  of  diplomacy  and  education.' 

'  The  "  land  of  the  Hittites,"  according  to  the  statements  of  the 
Vannic  Kings,  stretched  along  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  from  Palu 
on  the  east  as  far  as  Malatiyeh  on  the  west.  The  Hittites  of  the 
Assyrian  monuments  lived  to  the  south-west  of  this  region,  spreading 
through  Komagene  to  Carchemish  and  Aleppo.  The  Egyptian 
records  bring  them  yet  further  south,  to  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes,  while 
the  Old  Testament  carries  the  name  into  the  extreme  south  of  Pales- 
tine. It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  we  must  see  in  the  Hittite  tribes 
fragments  of  a  race  whose  original  seat  was  in  the  ranges  of  the 
Taurus,  but  who  had  pushed  their  way  into  the  warm  plains  and  valleys 
of  Syria  and  Palestine.  They  belonged  originally  to  Asia  Minor,  not 
to  Syria,  and  it  was  conquest  only  which  gave  them  a  right  to  the 
name  of  Syrians.  Hittite  was  their  true  title,  and  whether  the  tribes 
to  which  it  belonged  lived  in  Judah  or  on  the  Orontes,  at  Carchemish 
or  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Palu,  this  was  the  title  under  which  they 
were  known.' 


KINGS  Of  THE  H1TTITES.  25 

As  to  the  personal  appearance  of  this  race,  Dr.  Sayce  says :  '  The 
Hittites  were  a  people  with  yellow  skins  and  "  Mongoloid  "  features, 
whose  receding  foreheads,  oblique  eyes,  and  protruding  upper  jaws, 
are  represented  as  faithfully  on  their  own  monuments  as  they  are  on 
those  of  Egypt,  so  that  we  cannot  accuse  the  Egyptian  artists  of 
caricature.  If  the  Egyptians  have  made  the  Hittites  ugly,  it  was 
because  they  were  so  in  reality.' 

In  his  interesting  work,  *  Fresh  Light  from  Ancient  Monuments,' 
Dr.  Sayce  has  a  chapter  on  the  Empire  of  the  Hittites,  which  contains 
a  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  discovery  of  this  people,  their  sculptures, 
and  their  writing ;  and  he  has  more  fully  dealt  with  the  subject  in  a 
recent  work  on  '  The  Hittites.'  From  the  former  of  these  books  we  take 
the  following  passages,  premising  that  it  was  quite  recently  published. 

*  Five  years  ago  there  was  no  one  who  suspected  that  a  great  empire 
had  once  existed  in  Western  Asia,  and  contended  on  equal  terms  with 
both  Egypt  and  Assyria,  the  founders  of  which  were  the  little  noticed 
Hittites  of  the  Old  Testament.  Still  less  did  anyone  dream  that 
these  same  Hittites  had  once  carried  their  arms,  their  art,  and  their 
religion  to  the  shores  of  the  ^Egean,  and  that  the  early  civilization  of 
Greece  and  Europe  was  as  much  indebted  to  them  as  it  was  to  the 
Phoenicians. 

1  The  discovery  was  made  in  1879.  Recent  exploration  and  excava- 
tion* had  shown  that  the  primitive  art  and  culture  of  Greece,  as 
revealed,  for  example,  by  Dr.  Schliemann's  excavations  at  Mykense, 
were  influenced  by  a  peculiar  art  and  culture  emanating  from  Asia 
Minor.  Here,  too,  certain  strange  monuments  had  been  discovered, 
which  form  a  continuous  chain  from  Lydia  in  the  west  to  Kappadokia 
and  Lykaonia  in  the  east.  The  best  known  of  these  are  certain  rock 
sculptures  found  at  Boghaz,  Keui  and  Eyuk,  on  the  eastern  side  of 
the  Halys,  and  two  figures  in  relief  in  the  pass  of  Karabel,  near 
Sardes,  which  the  old  Greek  historian,  Herodotus,  had  long  ago 
supposed  to  be  memorials  of  the  Egyptian  conqueror,  Sesostris,  or 
Ramses  II. 

'  Meanwhile,  other  discoveries  were  being  made  in  lands  more  imme- 
diately connected  with  the  Bible.  Scholars  had  learned  from  the 
Egyptian  inscriptions  that,  before  the  days  of  the  Exodus,  the  Egyptian 
monarchs  had  been  engaged  in  fierce  struggles  with  the  powerful 
nation  of  the  Hittites,  whose  two  chief  seats  were  at  Kadesh  on  the 
Orontes,  and  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates,  and  who  were  able  to 
summon  to  their  aid  subject-allies  not  only  from  Palestine,  but  also 
far  away  from  Lydia  and  the  Troad,  on  the  western  coast  of  Asia 
Minor.  Ramses  II.  himself,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression,  had 


26       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

been  glad  to  make  peace  with  his  antagonists ;  and  the  treaty,  which 
provided,  among  other  things,  for  the  amnesty  of  political  offenders 
who  had  found  a  shelter  during  the  war  among  one  or  other  of  the 
two  combatants,  was  cemented  by  the  marriage  of  the  Egyptian  king 
with  the  daughter  of  his  rival.  A  century  or  two  afterwards  Tiglath- 
Pileser  I.  of  Assyria  found  his  passage  across  the  Euphrates  barred 
by  the  Hittites  of  Carchemish  and  their  Kolkhian  mercenaries. 
From  this  time  forward  the  Hittites  proved  dangerous  enemies  to  the 
Assyrian  kings  in  their  attempts  to  extend  the  empire  towards  the 
west,  until  at  last,  in  B.C.  717,  Sargon  succeeded  in  capturing  their 
rich  capital,  Carchemish,  and  in  making  it  the  seat  of  an  Assyrian 
satrap.  Henceforth  the  Hittites  disappear  from  history. 

1  That  they  were  a  literary  people,  and  possessed  a  system  of  writing 
of  their  own,  we  learn  from  the  Egyptian  monuments.  What  this 
writing  was  has  been  revealed  by  recent  discoveries.  Inscriptions  in 
a  peculiar  kind  of  hieroglyphics  or  picture-writing  have  been  found  at 
Hamath,  Aleppo,  and  Carchemish,  in  Kappadokia,  Lykaonia,  and 
Lydia.  They  are  always  found  associated  with  sculptures  in  a 
curious  style  of  art,  some  of  which  from  Carchemish,  the  modern 
Jerablus,  are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  It  was  the  discovery  of 
this  fact  (by  Dr.  Sayce),  in  1879,  which  first  revealed  the  existence  of 
the  Hittite  Empire  and  its  importance  in  the  history  of  civilization. 
Certain  hieroglyphic  inscriptions,  originally  noticed  by  the  traveller 
Burckhardt,  at  Hamah,  the  ancient  Hamath,  had  been  made  acces- 
sible to  the  scientific  world  by  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  and 
the  conjecture  had  been  put  forward  that  they  represented  the  long- 
lost  writing  of  the  Hittites.  The  conjecture  was  shortly  afterwards 
confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  similar  inscriptions  at  Jerablus,  which 
Mr.  Skene  and  Mr.  George  Smith  had  already  identified  with  the  site 
of  Carchemish.  If,  therefore,  the  early  monuments  of  Asia  Minor 
were  really  of  Hittite  origin,  it  was  clear  that  they  ought  to  be  accom- 
panied by  Hittite  hieroglyphics.  And  such  turned  out  to  be  the  case. 
On  visiting  the  sculptured  figure  in  the  pass  of  Karabel,  in  which 
Herodotus  had  seen  an  image  of  the  great  opponent  of  the  Hittites, 
Dr.  Sayce  found  that  the  characters  engraved  by  the  side  of  it  were 
all  of  them  Hittite  forms.' 

It  is  only  necessary  to  add,  '  that  the  Hittites  were  intruders  in  the 
Semitic  territory  of  Syria.  Their  origin  must  be  sought  in  the  high- 
lands of  Kappadokia,  and  from  hence  they  descended  into  the  regions 
of  the  south,  at  that  time  occupied  by  Semitic  Arameans.  Hamath 
and  Kadesh  had  once  been  Aramean  cities,  and  when  they  were  again 
wrested  from  the  possession  of  the  Hittites  they  did  but  return  to 


KINGS  OF  THE  HITTITES.  27 

their  former  owners.     The  fall  of  Carchemish  meant  the  final  triumph 
of  the  Semites  in  their  long  struggle  with  the  Hittite  stranger. 

*  Even  in  their  southern  home  the  Hittites  preserved  the  dress  of 
the  cold  mountainous  country  from  which  they  had  come.  They  are 
characterized  by  boots  with  turned-up  toes,  such  as  are  still  worn  by 
the  mountaineers  of  Asia  Minor  and  of  Greece.  They  were  thick-set, 
and  somewhat  short  of  limb,  and  the  Egyptian  artists  painted  them 
without  beards,  of  a  yellowish-white  colour,  with  dark  black  hair.  In 
short,  as  M.  Lenormant  has  pointed  out,  they  had  all  the  physical 
characteristics  of  a  Caucasian  tribe.  Their  descendants  are  still  to  be 
met  with  in  the  defiles  of  the  Taurus,  and  on  the  plateau  of  Kappa- 
dokia,  though  they  have  utterly  forgotten  the  language  or  languages 
their  forefathers  spoke.  What  their  language  was  is  still  uncertain. 
But  the  proper  names  preserved  on  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian 
monuments  show  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  Semitic  family  of 
speech,  and  an  analysis  of  the  Hittite  inscriptions  further  makes  it 
evident  that  it  made  large  use  of  suffixes.  But  we  must  be  on  our 
guard  against  supposing  that  the  language  was  uniform  throughout 
the  district  in  which  the  Hittite  population  lived.  Different  tribes, 
doubtless,  spoke  different  dialects;  and  some  of  these  dialects 
probably  differed  widely  from  each  other.  But  they  all  belonged  to 
the  same  general  type  and  class  of  language,  and  may,  therefore,  be 
collectively  spoken  of  as  the  Hittite  language,  just  as  the  various 
dialects  of  England  are  collectively  termed  English.' 

Identification  of  Belshazzar. 

DANIEL  v.  30 :  '  In  that  night  was  Belshazzar,  the  king  of  the  Chaldseans, 
slain.' 

Question. —  What  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the  reign,  and  the 
death,  of  this  king  by  recent  discoveries  ? 

Answer. — It  will  be  well  to  see  first  what  was  the  knowledge  at 
command  a  few  years  ago,  so  that  we  may  clearly  understand  the 
importance  of  the  additions  and  corrections  that  have  been  recently 
suggested. 

The  kings  of  Babylon  after  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  died  561  B.C., 
were  Evil-Merodach  (561-559),  Neriglissar  (559-556),  Laborosoarchod 
(reigned  nine  months),  and  Nabu-Nahid  (555-538).  Herodotus  gives 
only  the  one  name  Labynetus  to  fill  up  the  interval;  and  the 
Scriptures  only  mention  Evil-Merodach  and  Belshazzar. 

Belshazzar  is  called  the  '  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,'  but  this  need 
not  occasion  difficulty,  because  the  term  '  son'  is  freely  used  to  mean 


28        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

'  descendant,'  and  Belshazzar  would  be  regarded  as  a  son  of  the 
royal  house  if  he  married  one  of  the  princesses.  Two  explanations 
seem  to  have  gained  favour.  Belshazzar  was  regarded  as  a  second 
name  for  Evil-Merodach,  who  perished,  as  Belshazzar  is  said  to  have 
done,  after  a  reign  of  the  same  length  as  is  ascribed  to  Belshazzar. 
But  the  dates  cannot  be  fitted  to  this  theory.  In  1854  a  remarkable 
discovery  was  made  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  at  Mugheir,  the  ancient 
Ur ;  but  the  value  of  it  in  relation  to  the  question  before  us  is  not 
universally  admitted.  'Documents  were  brought  to  light  which 
prove  that  Nabonnedus  (Nabu-Nahid),  during  the  last  years  of  his 
reign,  associated  his  son  Bil-shar-uzur  with  himself  in  the  government, 
and  allowed  him  the  royal  title.  He,  then,  may  have  conducted  the 
defence  of  Babylon  within  the  walls ;  while  the  father  commanded 
without.  Bil-shar-uzur  was  very  young  at  the  time ;  but  princes  as 
young  as  he  have  held  high  command  in  the  East ; — thus  Herod  the 
Great  was  Governor  of  Galilee  at  fifteen ; — and  the  interference  of 
the  queen  is  some  presumption  of  the  king's  youth.  If  Nabonnedus 
married  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  if  Belshazzar  was  the 
issue  of  that  marriage,  the  expressions  of  Dan.  v.  n,  13,  18,  22  are 
accounted  for.  Also,  as  there  were  two  sovereigns,  it  is  seen  why 
Daniel  was  proclaimed  third  ruler  of  the  kingdom.' 

According  to  Berosus,  Nabonnedus  had  retired  from  Babylon  to  the 
neighbouring  city  of  Borsippa;  there  he  was  blockaded,  and,  surrender- 
ing at  last  to  Cyrus,  his  life  was  spared,  a  principality  in  Carmania 
was  bestowed  on  him,  and  there  he  died.  The  circumstances 
connected  with  the  taking  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  are  disputed. 
Xenophon  speaks  of  the  capture  of  the  city  during  a  night  of 
feasting,  and  of  the  death  of  the  king,  whom,  however,  he  does  not 
name. 

A  fairly  reasonable  account  of  Belshazzar  was  thus  given  in 
explanation  of  the  Scripture  references.  He  was  represented  as  the 
son,  and  joint  king,  of  Nabonnedus,  and  entrusted  with  the  defence 
of  Babylon,  while  his  father  led  the  army  in  the  field.  Scripture  does 
not  give  any  intimation  of  a  desperate  assault  on  Babylon.  It  is 
quite  open  to  the  possibility  that  the  city  was  taken  by  stratagem,  or 
even  entered  quietly  at  the  goodwill  of  the  officials.  The  only  thing 
affirmed  is  that,  on  the  very  night  of  the  banquet,  Belshazzar  was 
slain. 

Professor  George  Rawlinson  presents  the  following  arguments  in 
support  of  the  discovery  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  which  provides  such 
important  help  toward  the  identification  of  Belshazzar.  'Sir  H. 
Rawlinson's  inference  from  the  inscription  has  been  denied.  (On 


IDENTIFICATION  OF  BELSHAZZAR.  29 

cylinders  placed  by  Nabonidus  at  the  corners  of  the  great  temple  of 
Ur,  he  mentioned  by  name  "his  eldest  son,  Bel-shar-uzur,"  and 
prayed  the  moon-god  to  take  him  under  his  protection  "that  his 
glory  might  endure.")  Mr.  Fox  Talbot  has  maintained  that  the 
inscription  does  not  furnish  the  "  slightest  evidence,"  that  Bel-shar- 
uzur  was  ever  regarded  as  co-regent  with  his  father.  "  He  may,"  he 
says,  "  have  been  a  mere  child  when  it  was  written."  The  controversy 
turns  upon  the  question,  What  was  Oriental  practice  in  this  matter  ? 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson  holds  that  Oriental  monarchs  generally,  and  the 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings  in  particular,  were  so  jealous  of 
possible  rivals  in  their  own  family,  that  they  did  not  name  even  their 
own  sons  upon  public  documents  unless  they  had  associated  them  with 
them  in  the  government.  Kudur-mabuk  mentions  his  son  Rim-agu  ; 
but  he  has  made  him  King  of  Larsa.  Sennacherib  mentions  Asshur- 
nadinsum,  but  on  the  occasion  of  his  elevation  to  the  throne  of 
Babylon.  Apart  from  these  instances,  and  that  of  Bel-shar-uzur,  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  mention  made  of  their  sons  by  name  by  the 
monarchs  of  either  country.' 

'  The  supposition  that  Bel-shar-uzur  may  have  been  "  a  mere  child," 
when  the  inscription  on  which  his  name  occurs  was  set  up,  is  com- 
pletely negatived  by  the  newly  discovered  tablet  of  Nabonidus,  which 
shows  him  to  have  had  a  son — and  Bel-shar-uzur  was  his  "eldest  son" — 
who  held  the  command  of  his  main  army  from  his  seventh  year,  B.C. 
549,  to  his  eleventh,  B.C.  545.  It  is  a  reasonable  supposition  that  the 
prince  mentioned  upon  this  tablet  was  Bel-shar-uzur.  He  is  called 
emphatically  "  the  king's  son,"  and  is  mentioned  five  times.  While 
Cyrus  is  threatening  Babylon  both  on  the  north  and  on  the  south, 
Nabonidus  is  shown  to  have  remained  sluggish  and  inert  within  the 
walls  of  the  capital,  the  true  kingly  power  being  exercised  by  "  the 
king's  son,"  who  is  with  the  army  and  the  officers  in  Akkad,  or 
northern  Babylonia,  watching  Cyrus,  and  protecting  Babylon.  When 
the  advance  of  the  army  of  Babylon  is  finally  made,  what  "  the  king's 
son  "  did  is  not  told  us.  Nabonidus  must  have  roused  himself  from 
his  lethargy,  and  joined  his  troops ;  but  as  soon  as  he  found  himself 
in  danger,  he  fled.  Pursuit  was  made,  he  was  captured — possibly  at 
Borsippa,  as  Berosus  related.  The  victorious  Persians  took  him 
with  them  into  Babylon.  If  at  this  time  "  the  king's  son  "  was  still 
alive,  any  further  resistance  that  was  made  must,  almost  certainly, 
have  been  made  by  him.  Now,  such  resistance  was  made.  A  body  of 
"  rebels,"  as  they  are  called,  threw  themselves  into  Bit-Saggatu,  or  the 
fortified  enclosure  within  which  stood  the  Great  Temple  of  Bel- 
Merodach  and  the  Royal  Palace,  and,  shutting  to  the  gates,  defied 


30        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  enemy.  It  is  true  one  record  says  no  preparations  had  been 
previously  made  for  the  defence  of  the  place,  and  there  was  no  store 
of  weapons  in  it.  But  the  soldiers  would  have  their  own  weapons  ; 
the  temple  and  the  palace  would  probably  be  well  supplied  with  wine 
and  provisions ;  the  defences  would  be  strong ;  and  the  feeling  of  the 
defenders  may  well  have  been  such  as  Herodotus  ascribes  to  the 
mass  of  the  Babylonians  when  they  shut  themselves  within  the  walls 
of  the  town.  Bel-shar-uzur  and  his  lords  may  have  felt  so  secure 
that  they  could  indulge  in  feasting  and  revelry.  They  may  have 
maintained  their  position  for  months.  It  is  at  any  rate  most 
remarkable  that  the  writer  of  the  tablet,  having  launched  his  shaft  of 
contempt  against  the  foolish  "rebels,  "interposed  a  break  of  more  than 
four  months  between  this  and  the  next  paragraph.  It  was  at  the  end 
of  Tammuz  that  the  "  rebels  "  closed  the  gates  of  Bit-Saggatu ;  it  was 
not  till  the  third  day  of  Marchesvan  that  "Cyrus  to  Babylon 
descended,  and  made  peace  there.  It  may  have  been  on  the  night 
of  his  arrival  with  strong  reinforcements  that  the  final  attack  was 
made,  and  that  Belshazzar,  having  provoked  God  by  a  wanton  act  of 
impiety,  was  slain." ' 

The  objections  to  this  identification  of  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel 
with  Bil-shar-uzur,  the  eldest  son  of  Nabonidus,  are:  (i)  Belshazzar 
is  called  repeatedly  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Bel-shar-uzur  was  in  any  way  related  to  that  monarch. 
(2)  The  Book  of  Daniel  gives  no  hint  of  Belshazzar's  having  a  father 
still  alive,  and  on  the  throne.  (In  replying  to  this,  due  importance 
may  be  given  to  the  fact  that  Daniel  was  constituted  third  ruler ; 
v.  7.) 

Professor  A.  H.  Sayce  reads  the  latest  inscriptions  in  such  a  way 
as  to  venture  on  the  statement  that  Babylon  was  not  besieged  and 
taken  by  Cyrus.  It  opened  its  gates  to  his  general  long  before  he 
came  near  it,  and  needed  neither  fighting  nor  battle  for  its  occupa- 
tion. There  may  have  been  several  sieges  of  the  city,  and  foreign 
historians  may  have  confused  these  together.  We  need  to  be  very 
careful  in  not  making  Scripture  responsible  for  the  errors  of 
Herodotus  and  other  historians.  And  concerning  Belshazzar 
Scripture  affirms  no  more  than  the  banquet  of  the  king,  and  his  death 
by  violence  on  the  night  of  the  banquet,  and  the  change  of  the 
government  of  Babylon  on  the  event  of  his  death.  It  may  be  further 
noticed  that  the  name  of  the  last  King  of  Babylon,  on  the  Babylonian 
records,  is  Maruduk-sarra-usur,  which  is  not  unlike  Belshazzar,  or 
Bel-shar-uzur. 

There  will  probably  be  further  discoveries  which  may  help  to  clear 


IDENTIFICATION  OF  BELSHAZZAR.  31 

up  difficulties ;  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  most  recent  dis- 
coveries tend  to  increase  difficulties  rather  than  to  relieve  them.  *  In 
the  inscription  of  Cyrus,  of  which  Professor  Sayce  gives  a  somewhat 
full  account,  Cyrus  states  that  he  "took  Babylon  without  bloodshed, 
and  made  Nabonidus  prisoner."  He  also  mentions  that  "  the  king's 
son  "  was  at  Accad,  "  with  his  great  men  and  soldiers,"  in  the  same 
year  as  the  capture  of  Babylon,  and  that  the  men  of  Accad  raised 
a  revolt.  Further  on  in  the  inscription,  which  is  much  mutilated,  a 
statement  is  made,  "  and  the  king  died.  From  the  seventh  of  the 
month  Adar  unto  the  third  day  of  the  month  Nisan  there  was  weep- 
ing in  Accad."  Now,  according  to  the  last  mention  made  of 
Nabonidus  in  this  inscription,  he  was  taken  bound  to  Babylon.  It  is 
highly  probable,  therefore,  that  the  king  who  died  at  Accad  was  "  the 
king's  son  "  mentioned  in  an  earlier  part  of  the  inscription.  May  it 
not  be  conjectured  that  this  was  Belshazzar,  and  that  the  scene  de- 
scribed in  Dan.  v.  occured  at  Accad,  and  not  at  Babylon?'  (H. 
Deane,  B.D.) 

We  may  venture  to  say  that  Belshazzar  is  identified  as  the  eldest 
son  of  Nabonidus,  but  the  materials  are  not  yet  at  our  command  for 
presenting  his  history  with  minuteness  and  precision. 


Fulfilment  of  the  Curse  on  Jericho. 

i  KINGS  xvi.  34  :  'In  his  days  did  Hiel  the  Bethel-ite  build  Jericho  :  he  laid 
the  foundation  thereof  in  Abiram  his  firstborn,  and  set  up  the  gates  thereof  in  his 
youngest  son,  Segub,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake  by 
Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun.' 

Difficulty. — As  Jericho  is  mentioned  as  an  existing  town  between 
the  time  of  Joshua  and  the  time  of  Ahab,  it  is  not  easy  to  recognise  in 
what  lay  the  precise  sin  of  Hiel. 

Explanation. — It  will  be  well  first  to  have  all  the  passages 
relating  to  the  matter  before  us.  The  first  is  the  curse  pronounced 
by  Joshua  :  '  And  Joshua  adjured  them  at  that  time,  saying,  Cursed 
be  the  man  before  the  Lord,  that  riseth  up  and  buildeth  this  city 
Jericho ;  he  shall  lay  the  foundation  thereof  in  his  firstborn,  and  in 
his  youngest  son  shall  he  set  up  the  gates  of  it.'  On  this  curse  it 
may  be  remarked  that  the  interest  of  the  siege  of  Jericho  gathers 
about  the  walls,  or  fortifications,  of  the  city.  The  miraculous  power 
of  God  was  directed  to  the  throwing  down  of  the  walls  ;  and  the 
significant  reference  in  the  curse  to  the  '  gates '  may  indicate  that  the 
curse  took  a  soldier's  form,  and  was  concerned  only  with  the  peril 
which  might  attend  upon  rebuilding  the  walls,  and  refortifying  the 


32        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

town.  Jericho,  as  an  open  town,  would  be  no  peril  to  the  young 
nation,  but  Jericho,  walled  and  fortified,  might  easily  become  a 
serious  menace  if  seized  by  a  hostile  army.  As  we  read  the  original 
curse,  then,  it  may  be  intended  to  curse  the  fortifier  rather  than  the  re- 
builder  of  the  city. 

The  following  are  the  intimations  that  a  city  was  to  be  found  at 
the  site  of  Jericho  up  to  the  time  of  David.  In  Judges  i.  16,  the 
children  of  the  Kenite  are  said  to  have  gone  up  '  out  of  the  city  of 
palm-trees ;'  and  that  this  was  the  recognised  name  of  Jericho  is 
inferred  from  Deut.  xxxiv.  3 ;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  15. 

In  Judges  iii.  13,  we  are  told  that  Eglon  of  Moab  confederated 
with  the  children  of  Ammon  and  Amalek,  and  went  'and  smote 
Israel,  and  they  possessed  the  city  of  palm-trees.' 

But  the  matter  is  made  quite  certain  by  the  fact  that  David 
appointed  Jericho  for  the  place  of  retirement  to  his  ambassadors 
whom  the  Ammonites  had  maltreated.  They  were  to  tarry  at  Jericho 
until  their  beards  were  grown ;  and  there  certainly  must  have  been  a 
Jericho  to  tarry  at  (2  Sam.  x.  5). 

Two  explanations  have  been  suggested,  (i)  As  a  devoted  city 
might  not  be  rebuilt  (Deut.  xiii.  16),  and  the  Jews  in  all  probability 
levelled  the  houses,  we  may  assume  that  the  open  towns  referred  to 
in  Judges,  and  Samuel,  were  built  in  the  neighbourhood,  but  not 
at  the  original  site.  But  if  there  was  already  a  Jericho  quite  near,  it 
is  difficult  to  understand  why  Hiel  should  take  the  trouble  to  build 
on  the  old  site.  (2)  The  other  suggestion  is,  in  every  way,  the  most 
reasonable  one,  and  is  supported  by  most  Biblical  writers.  As  a 
part  of  Ahab's  military  schemes,  taken  without  giving  any  heed  to 
the  word  or  will  of  God,  Hiel  was  entrusted  with  the  work  of  re- 
fortifying  Jericho,  as  a  frontier  garrison  of  the  territory  of  Israel, 
and  as  commanding  the  ford  over  the  Jordan.  It  was  designed  to 
be  a  Divine  warning  to  Ahab,  that  the  old  curse  so  surely  fell  on 
him  who  thus  wilfully  acted  against  a  positive  Divine  command. 

The  narrative  of  Hiel  is  given  as  a  proof  of  the  general  impiety 
of  Ahab's  time.  Men  were  wilful  because  the  king  set  an  example 
of  wilfulness.  '  The  curse  of  Joshua  had  hitherto  been  respected  ; 
but  now  faith  in  the  old  religion  had  so  decayed  that  Joshua's 
malediction — terrible  as  it  was — no  longer  exercised  a  deterrent 
power.' 


THE  TIME  FOR  KILLING  THE  PASSOVER.        33 
The  Time  for  Killing  the  Passover. 

EXODUS  xii.  6  :  '  And  ye  shall  keep  it  up  until  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  same 
month  :  and  the  whole  assembly  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall  kill  it  in  the 
evening.'  REV.  VER.  :  '  At  even.'  HEB.  :  '  Between  the  two  evenings.' 

Question. — Does  any  symbolical  importance  attach  to  the  precision 
of  these  Passover  requirements  ? 

Answer. — The  thing  that  most  arrests  attention,  in  the  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  Passover,  is  the  precision  and  minuteness  of 
the  details.  Everything  had  to  be  done  at  exactly  prescribed  times, 
and  in  exactly  prescribed  ways.  But  the  explanation  is  to  be  found 
in  the  necessity  for  putting  to  the  test  the  obedience  of  the  people, 
rather  than  in  the  symbolical  suggestion  of  all  the  details  of  the 
ritual.  It  is  always  safer  to  seek  for  moral  than  for  symbolical 
meanings  in  the  Divine  regulations  :  for,  even  if  symbolical  ones  can 
be  found,  they  are  only  the  handmaids  of  the  moral.  The  end  of  all 
Divine  dealings,  whatever  may  be  the  forms  they  take,  is  always  the 
culture  of  character.  Symbol  and  rite  are  never  ends  in  themselves, 
nor  can  they  ever  have  value  apart  from  their  religious  and  moral 
influence. 

Moral  obedience  can  be  tested  by  requirements  definite  in  form, 
and  precise  in  detail.  A  formal  obedience  may  satisfy  itself  with 
doing  the  thing  that  is  required ;  but  heart  obedience  will  find  its 
natural  expression  in  doing  the  thing  that  is  required  exactly  as  he 
who  commands  wishes  it  to  be  done.  The  details  of  the  Divine 
requirement  are  of  the  deepest  interest  to  the  man  who  desires  to 
show  his  love  by  his  obedience.  And  these  minute  requirements  of 
the  Passover  rite  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  gracious  provision  of 
opportunities  for  showing  obedience. 

The  arrangement  of  one  particular  time  for  killing  the  lamb,  is 
perhaps  the  most  striking  of  these  details.  What  is  called  in  the 
Hebrew,  '  between  the  two  evenings,'  was  doubtless  quite  distinctly 
understood  by  the  Israelites,  though  it  seems  confusing  to  us. 
According  to  Onkelos  and  Aben  Ezra,  the  first  evening  was  at  sun- 
set, the  second  about  an  hour  later,  when  the  twilight  ended,  and  the 
stars  came  out  (Deut.  xvi.  6).  Canon  Cook  thinks  the  most 
probable  explanation  is  that  it  includes  the  time  from  afternoon,  or 
early  eventide,  until  sunset.  '  This  accords  with  the  ancient  custom 
of  the  Hebrews,  who  slew  the  paschal  lamb  immediately  after  the  offer- 
ing of  the  daily  sacrifice,  which  on  the  day  of  the  Passover  took  place  a 
-ittle  earlier  than  usual,  between  two  and  three  p.m.  This  would 
illow  about  two  hours  and  a  half  for  slaying  and  preparing  all  the 

3 


34        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

lambs.  It  is  clear  that  they  would  not  wait  until  sunset,  at  which 
time  the  evening  meal  would  take  place.  This  interpretation  is 
supported  by  Rashi,  Kimchi,  Bochart,  Lightfoot,  Clericus,  and 
Patrick.  Thus  Josephus  :  "  They  offer  this  sacrifice  from  the  ninth 
to  the  eleventh  hour."  The  Greeks  had  the  same  idiom,  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  early  and  late  evening.' 

The  Pharisees,  in  our  Lord's  time  (and  the  Jews  now),  understood 
the  time  between  the  sun's  declining  and  its  actual  setting. 

Kalisch  translated  :  *  at  dusk,'  and  quotes  with  approval  the  follow- 
ing from  Aben  Ezra.  *  We  have  two  evenings  ;  the  first,  the  setting 
of  the  sun,  that  is,  the  time  when  he  disappears  beneath  the 
horizon  ;  and  the  second,  the  ceasing  of  the  light  which  is  reflected 
in  the  clouds ;  and  between  both  lies  an  interval  of  about  one  hour 
and  twenty  minutes.' 


Sentiment  of  Egyptians  concerning  Shepherds. 

GENESIS  xlvi.  34  :  '  For  every  shepherd  is  an  abomination  unto  the  Egyptians.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  for  us  to  trace  the  causes,  in  Egyptian 
manners,  or  in  Egyptian  history,  for  this  strong  sentiment  ? 

Answer. — It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  the  Egyptians  merely 
objecting,  in  an  aristocratic  spirit,  to  the  occupation  of  tending  cattle. 
Mere  class-feeling  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  so  strong  an  expression 
as  { an  abomination.'  The  sentiment  must  have  been  a  national  and 
political  one.  It  seems  that,  '  in  the  reign  of  Timaus,  or  Thamuz, 
Egypt  was  invaded  by  a  tribe  of  Cushite  Shepherds  from  Arabia. 
The  Egyptians  submitted  without  trying  the  event  of  a  battle,  and 
were  exposed,  for  a  period  of  260  years,  to  the  most  tyrannous  and 
insulting  conduct  from  their  new  masters  ;  who  made  one  of  their 
own  number  king,  and  established  their  capital  at  Memphis  ;  having 
in  proper  places  strong  garrisons,  which  kept  both  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt  under  subjection  and  tribute.  There  were  six  kings  of  this 
dynasty,  who  were  called  Hyksos,  or  "  King-shepherds,"  and  they 
exercised  a  degree  of  cruelty  and  oppression  upon  the  natives  which 
left  an  indelible  sense  of  hatred  upon  the  minds  of  the  Egyptians, 
even  in  periods  long  subsequent.  At  last  the  national  spirit  wa^ 
roused,  and  after  a  war  of  thirty  years,  the  princes  of  Upper  Egypt 
succeeded  in  obliging  them  to  withdraw  from  the  country  which  hac 
been  so  deeply  injured  by  their  invasion '  (Kitto]. 

Professor  George  Rawlinson  points  out  that,  though  this  sentimen 
against  shepherds  prevailed  among  the  native  Egyptians,  while  th< 


SENTIMENT  CONCERNING  SHEPHERDS.          35 

foreign  Hyksos  reigned,  such  an  immigration  as  Jacob's  would  be 
specially  welcome  to  the  authorities.  '  Egypt  had  been  conquered, 
some  centuries  before  the  time  of  Joseph,  by  a  nomadic  race  from 
Asia,  of  pastoral  habits.  The  conquest  had  been  accompanied  with 
extreme  cruelty  and  violence  ;  wherever  the  nomads  triumphed,  the 
males  of  full  age  had  been  massacred,  the  women  and  children  reduced 
to  slaver)7,  the  cities  burnt,  the  temples  demolished,  the  images  of  the 
gods  thrown  to  the  ground.  An  oppressive  and  tyrannical  rule  had 
been  established.  The  old  Egyptians,  the  native  African  race,  were 
bowed  down  beneath  the  yoke  of  unsympathetic  aliens.  Although 
by  degrees  the  manners  of  the  conquerors  became  softened,  and,  as 
so  often  happens,  the  rude  invaders  conformed  themselves  more  and 
more,  in  language,  habits  and  methods  of  thought,  to  the  pattern  set 
them  by  their  more  civilized  subjects,  yet,  so  far  as  feelings  and 
sentiments  were  concerned,  a  wide  gulf  still  separated  the  two.  Like 
the  Aryan  Persians  under  the  rule  of  the  Parthian s,  like  the  native 
Chinese  under  the  Mantchu  Tartars,  the  Egyptians  groaned  and  re- 
pined in  secret,  and  persistently  nurtured  the  hope  of  one  day  re- 
asserting their  independence.  Nor  were  their  foreign  masters  un- 
aware of  these  feelings.  They  knew  themselves  to  be  detested  ;  they 
were  conscious  of  the  volcano  under  their  feet ;  they  lived  in  expecta- 
tion of  an  outbreak,  and  were  always  engaged  in  making  preparations 
against  it.  In  this  condition  of  affairs,  each  band  of  immigrants 
from  Asia,  especially  if  of  nomadic  habits,  was  regarded  as  an  acces- 
sion of  strength,  and  was  therefore  welcomed  and  treated  with  favour. 
Shepherds  were  "  an  abomination  "  to  the  real  native  Egyptians.  To 
the  Hyksos  kings,  who  held  the  dominion  of  Egypt,  shepherds  were 
congenial,  and  Asiatic  shepherds,  more  or  less  akin  to  their  own  race, 
were  viewed  as  especially  trustworthy  and  reliable.' 

As  the  date  of  the  Shepherd  dynasty  is  doubtful,  many  writers 
prefer  to  explain  the  sentiment  of  the  Egyptians  towards  shepherds, 
as  a  class,  as  being  merely  the  prejudice  of  a  settled  and  civilized 
people  against  a  wandering  and  rough-mannered  race.  Inglis  well 
illustrates  this  point.  *  The  Egyptians,  being  a  settled,  civilized  and 
cultivated  people,  despised  the  rude,  wandering  shepherd ;  in  proof 
of  which  they  are  always  depicted  on  the  monuments  with  long,  lean, 
sickly  and  distorted  forms.  So  great  was  the  hatred  of  shepherds,, 
that  the  figures  of  them  were  wrought  into  the  soles  of  their  sandals, 
that  they  might  tread  at  least  on  their  effigies.  There  is  a  mummy  in 
Paris  having  a  shepherd  bound  with  cords  painted  beneath  the 
buskins.  Wool  was  considered  by  the  priests  to  be  unclean,  and  was 
never  used  for  wrapping  the  dead.  The  Pharisaic  prejudices,  and  the 

3—2 


36        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

repulsions  of  caste,  meaningless  and  irrational,  so  violent  in  India  in 
the  present  day,  may  help  us  to  an  explanation  of  the  Egyptian 
aversion  to  shepherds.' 

Speakers  Commentary  adds  :  '  Herodotus  speaks  of  the  aversion  of 
Egyptians  for  swineherds.  To  this  day,  sheep-feeding  is  esteemed 
the  office  of  women  and  slaves.  The  fact  that  the  Egyptians  them- 
selves were  great  agriculturists,  tillers  of  land,  and  that  their  neighbours 
the  Arab  tribes  of  the  desert,  with  whom  they  were  continually  at 
feud,  were  nomads  only,  may  have  been  sufficient  to  cause  this  feeling. 
The  Egyptians  looked  on  all  the  people  of  Egypt  as  of  noble  race, 
and  on  all  foreigners  as  low-born.  Hence  they  would  naturally 
esteem  a  nomadic  people  in  close  proximity  to  themselves,  and  with 
a  much  lower  civilization  than  their  own,  as  barbarous  and  despic- 
able.' 

Kitto  is  probably  right  in  a  careful  distinction  which  he  makes. 
'  We  are  inclined  to  consider  that  the  aversion  of  the  Egyptians  was 
not  so  exclusively  against  rearers  of  cattle  as  such,  as  against  the  class 
of  pastors  who  associated  the  rearing  of  cattle  with  habits  and  pursuits 
which  rendered  them  equally  hated  and  feared  by  a  settled  and  re- 
fined people  like  the  Egyptians.  We  would  therefore  understand  the 
text  in  the  most  intense  sense,  and  say  that  "  every  nomad  shepherd 
was  an  abomination  to  the  Egyptians  •"  for  there  is  no  evidence  that 
this  disgrace  attached,  for  instance,  to  those  cultivators  who,  being 
proprietors  of  lands,  made  the  rearing  of  cattle  an  important  part  of 
their  business.  The  nomad  tribes  who  pastured  their  flocks  on  the 
borders,  or  within  the  limits  of  Egypt,  did  not  in  general  belong  to 
the  Egyptian  nation,  but  were  of  Arabian,  or  Libyan,  descent  j 
whence  the  prejudice  against  them  as  nomads  was  superadded  to 
that  against  foreigners  in  general.  The  turbulent  and  aggressive  dis- 
position which  usually  forms  part  of  the  character  of  nomads— and 
their  entire  independence,  or  at  least  the  imperfect  and  uncertain 
control  which  it  is  possible  to  exercise  over  their  tribes — are  circum- 
stances so  replete  with  annoyance  and  danger  to  a  carefully  organised 
society,  like  that  of  the  Egyptians,  as  sufficiently  to  account  for  the 
hatred  and  scorn  which  the  ruling  priestly  caste  strove  to  keep  up 
against  them ;  and  it  was  probably  in  order  to  discourage  all  inter- 
course that  the  regulation  precluding  Egyptians  from  eating  with  them 
was  first  established.' 

Note. — The  question  whether  one  of  the  Hyksos  kings  was  on  the 
throne  at  the  time  of  Joseph  and  the  migration  of  Jacob's  family,  is 
treated  in  another  paragraph.  Wallis  Budge,  M.A.,  estimating  care- 
fully the  evidence,  says,  'The  last  king  of  the  twelfth  dynasty  was 


SENNACHERI&S  CALAMITY.  37 

Amenemha  IV. ;  and  from  this  period  (about  2200  B.C.)  to  the 
eighteenth  dynasty  there  is  a  gap  of  about  500  years.  It  is  during 
this  break  that  the  rule  of  the  Hyksos  or  "  Shepherd  Kings  "  comes 
in.  But  the  Hyksos  only  preserved  their  power  for  some  260  years. 


Sennacherib's   Calamity. 

2  KINGS  xix.  35  :  '  And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
went  forth,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  an  hundred  fourscore  and  five 
thousand  :  and  when  men  arose  early  in  the  morning,  behold,  they  were  all  dead 
corpses.' — Rev.  Ver. 

2  CHRON.  xxxii.  21  :  'And  the  Lord  sent  an  angel,  which  cut  off  all  the  mighty 
men  of  valour,  and  the  leaders  and  captains,  in  the  camp  of  the  king  of  Assyria. 
So  he  returned  with  shame  efface  to  his  own  land.' 

Difficulty, —  One  of  these  accounts  seems  to  intimate  that  the  great 
mass  of  the  army  was  slain  ;  the  other  appears  to  limit  the  slaughter 
to  the  officers. 

Explanation. — The  note  in  Chronicles  is  evidently  only  a  brief 
epitome  of  the  incident,  and,  as  it  gives  no  special  details,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  in  any  sense  contradictory  of  the  accounts  in  2  Kings 
xix.,  or  Isaiah  xxxvii.  36.  It  is  an  accepted  rule  for  all  historical 
compositions,  that  what  is  omitted  by  one  author  shall  not  be  regarded 
as  contradicting  what  is  stated  by  another  author,  unless  it  is  plainly 
inconsistent.  The  author  of  Chronicles,  in  stating  that  the  '  officers ' 
perished,  does  not  deny  that  the  '  common  soldiers '  also  perished ; 
and,  whatever  was  the  agent  used  for  the  infliction '  of  this  judgment, 
it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  it  would  be  limited,  in  its  range,  to  the 
leaders.  What  we  are  to  understand  is,  that  the  loss  was  so  utterly 
overwhelming  because  amongst  the  slain  were  all  the  principal 
officers. 

Herodotus  gives  the  Egyptian  version  of  this  calamity.  '  Senna- 
cherib, king  of  the  Arabians  and  Assyrians,  marched  a  large  army 
into  Egypt.  On  this  the  Egyptian  army  refused  to  help  their  king, 
Sethon,  a  priest  of  Vulcan.  He,  therefore,  being  reduced  to  a  strait, 
entered  the  temple  and  lamented  before  the  god  the  calamities 
impending.  While  thus  engaged  he  fell  asleep,  and  the  god  appeared 
to  him  in  a  vision,  telling  him  that  he  would  stand  by  him,  and 
encouraging  him  by  the  assurance  that  he  should  not  suffer,  since  he, 
the  god,  would  send  him  help.  Trusting  this  vision,  the  priest-king 
took  with  him  such  men  as  would  follow  him,  and  shut  himself  up  in 
Pelusium,  at  the  entrance  of  Egypt.  But  when  they  arrived  there 
myriads  of  field-mice,  pouring  in  on  their  enemies,  devoured  their 
quivers  and  bows  and  the  handles  of  their  shields,  so  that  when  they 


38        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

fled  next  day,  defenceless,  many  of  them  were  killed ;  and  to  this 
day  a  stone  statue  of  this  king  stands  in  the  temple  of  Vulcan,  with 
a  mouse  in  his  hand,  and  an  inscription  :  "  Whoever  looks  on  me,  let 
him  revere  the  gods." ' 

Kitto  says  :  '  Either  some  terrible  known  agency,  such  as  that  of  the 
pestilence,  or  the  hot  poisonous  wind,  was  employed,  or  some 
extraordinary  and  unknown  operation  took  place.  Berosus  says  that 
it  was  a  pestilence.  It  has  been  objected  that  no  pestilence  is  so 
suddenly  destructive.  Yet  we  do  read  of  instantaneously  destructive 
pestilence  in  Scripture,  as  in  the  wilderness  and  at  Bethshemesh  ;  and 
it  may  be  remarked,  even  of  the  natural  pestilence,  that  under  that 
disease  death  supervenes  at  a  certain  number  of  days  (not  more  in 
any  case  than  seven),  from  the  commencement ;  and  if,  therefore,  any 
number  of  men  were  smitten  with  it  at  one  time,  they  would  all  die  at 
the  same  period,  or  within  a  very  few  hours  of  each  other.  If  this 
were  the  case  here,  the  Assyrians  who  died  before  Jerusalem  may 
have  been  smitten  with  the  pestilence  before  they  left  Egypt.  But 
we  do  not  think  that  it  was  the  plague.  The  almost  immediately 
mortal  pestilence  so  often  mentioned  in  Scripture,  and  known  from 
other  ancient  authorities,  was  clearly  not  the  plague — the  symptoms 
described  do  not  agree  with  those  of  the  plague  ;  and  it  is  probably 
an  extinct  disease.  It  is  not  now  known,  even  in  the  East,  though  there 
is  abundant  evidence  in  history,  tale,  and  song,  of  its  former  existence. 
Of  the  glandular  plague,  the  present  prevailing  epidemic  of  the  East, 
there  is  no  certain  trace  in  history  anterior  to  the  third  century,  even 
in  Egypt.  Some  suggest  the  agency  of  the  simoon,  the  hot,  pes- 
tilential, desert  wind  ;  but  this  does  not  usually  affect  Palestine.  Its 
effects  sometimes  prove  instantly  fatal,  the  corpse  being  livid  or 
black,  like  that  of  a  person  blasted  by  lightning ;  at  other  times  it 
produces  putrid  fevers,  which  become  mortal  in  a  few  hours,  and  very 
few  of  those  struck  recover.' 

Dean  Stanley  says  :  '  By  what  special  means  this  great  destruction 
was  effected,  with  how  large  or  how  small  a  remnant  Sennacherib 
returned,  is  not  told.  It  might  be  a  pestilential  blast  (Isai.  xxxvii.  7), 
according  to  the  analogy  by  which  a  pestilence  is  usually  described 
in  Scripture  under  the  image  of  a  destroying  angel  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  49  . 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  16) ;  and  the  numbers  are  not  greater  than  are  recorded 
as  perishing  within  very  short  periods — 150,000  Carthaginians  in 
Sicily,  500,000  in  seven  months  at  Cairo.  It  might  be  accompanied 
by  a  storm.  So  Vitringa  understood  it,  and  this  would  best  suit 
the  words  in  Isaiah  xxx.  29.  Such  is  the  Talmudic  tradition,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  stones  were  still  to  be  seen  in  the  pass  of  Bethoron 


SENNACHERIB  S  CALAMITY.  39 

up   which    Sennacherib   was   supposed   to   be   advancing   with    his 
army.' 

Geikie  gathers  up  some  important  information.  *  The  vast 
multitude  who  perished — 185,000  men — points  to  a  far  greater 
calamity  than  could  have  befallen  the  army  corps  detached  for 
service  against  Jerusalem.  It  seems  probable  that  affairs  had  not 
prospered  with  Sennacherib  from  the  first,  in  spite  of  his  pompous 
inscriptions.  Indeed,  it  appears  as  if  this  could  be  read  between  the 
lines  ;  for,  though  he  boasts  of  having  gained  a  victory  at  Eltekeh,  no 
list  of  prisoners  or  details  of  the  booty  are  given,  and  he  has  to  con- 
tent himself  with  stating  that  he  took  the  town  of  Eltekeh,  and 
Timnah,  which  very  possibly  was  only  an  unwalled  village.  He 
speaks  of  having  shut  up  Hezekiah  like  a  bird  in  a  cage,  but  there  is 
nothing  said  of  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  nor  of  the  conquest  of 
Egypt,  or  even  of  his  having  entered  it,  though  this  was  the  great 
object  of  the  campaign.  It  seems  probable  that,  after  the  doubtful 
triumph  at  Eltekeh,  Sennacherib  contented  himself  with  besieging 
and  taking  Lachish  with  part  of  his  army ;  a  large  force  being  sent 
on,  possibly,  towards  Egypt,  while  a  corps  was  detached  against 
Jerusalem.  But  the  plague,  which  had  perhaps  already  shown  itself  in 
the  host,  appears  to  have  broken  out  violently  in  its  different  sections 
before  Jerusalem,  beyond  Eltekeh,  and  at  Libnah,  to  which  the  head- 
quarters had  been  removed  on  the  fall  of  Lachish.  The  Jewish 
tradition,  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  understood  the 
language  of  Scripture  as  indicating  an  outbreak  of  pestilence,  let 
loose,  as  in  the  case  of  the  similar  visitation  of  Jerusalem  under  David, 
by  the  angel  of  God  specially  commissioned  to  inflict  the  Divine 
wrath.  .  .  .  Instead  of  the  thousands  of  mail-clad  warriors,  lately  so 
eager  for  the  battle,  only  a  terrified  remnant  could  marshal  round 
him.  His  mighty  men  of  valour — the  rank  and  file  of  his  proudest 
battalions — his  officers  and  generals,  had  been  struck  down.  .  .  . 
Deserted  by  heaven,  and  left  to  the  fury  of  the  dreaded  demons  of 
pestilence  and  death,  the  panic-stricken  king  could  think  of  nothing 
but  instant,  though  ignominious,  flight  towards  Nineveh,  where  he 
might  hope  to  appease  his  gods.  Orderly  retreat  was  impossible. 
The  skeleton  battalions  were  too  demoralized.  A  deadly  fear  had 
seized  the  survivors.  The  spectacle  in  each  camp  was  too  appalling 
to  leave  room  for  hesitation.' 

Sennacherib  lived  for  twenty  years  after  his  withdrawal  from 
Palestine. 


40        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Darius  the  Median. 

DANIEL  v.  31  :  '  And  Darius  the  Median  took  the  kingdom,  being  about  three 
score  and  two  years  old.' 

Difficulty. — No  person  evidently  answering  to  this  description 
appears  in  the  records  of  Persian  or  Median  history. 

Explanation. — Dean  Stanley  says  that  '  Darius  the  Mede  is  still 
an  unsolved  problem.'  The  secular  history  says  that  Cyrus,  after  the 
capture  of  Babylon,  appointed  a  man  named  Gubaru  (Gobryas)  as 
his  governor  in  Babylon.  The  question  is  whether  this  Gubaru  and 
Darius  can  possibly  be  the  same  person.  Certainly  Darius  cannot 
be  identified  with  any  person  mentioned  in  profane  history,  and 
hitherto  no  traces  of  any  such  name  have  been  found  in  Babylonian 
inscriptions  belonging  to  this  period. 

The  part  of  the  inscription  of  Cyrus  that  refers  to  this  matter  reads 
as  follows :  *  On  the  third  day  of  Marchesvan  (October),  Cyrus 
entered  Babylon.  The  roads  (?)  before  him  were  covered.  He 
grants  peace  to  the  city,  to  the  whole  of  Babylon  Cyrus  proclaims 
peace.  Gobryas,  his  governor,  was  appointed  over  the  (other) 
governors  in  Babylon,  and  from  the  month  Chisleu  (November)  to 
the  month  Adar  (February)  the  gods  of  Accad,  whom  Nabonidus 
had  brought  to  Babylon,  were  restored  to  their  shrines.  On  the 
eleventh  day  of  the  previous  Marchesvan,  Gobryas  (was  appointed) 
over  Babylon,  and  the  King  Nabonidus  died.' 

But  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  death  of  Belshazzar  was  connected 
with  the  taking  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  on  this  occasion ;  and  history 
gives  no  record  of  any  Median  kingdom  intervening  between  the 
Babylonian  and  the  Persian  Empires.  The  readiest  explanation  is 
found  by  treating  Darius  as  a  deposed  king,  or  a  royal  relative  of 
Cyrus,  and  assuming  that  he  was  appointed  chief  governor  of  the 
conquered  province  of  Babylon,  with  the  courtesy  title  of  '  king,'  his 
official  name  being  Darius,  his  personal  name  Gobryas.  But  this  is 
assumption,  and  cannot  be  called  knowledge. 

The  only  Darius  of  this  date  known  in  history  is  Darius  the  son  of 
Hystaspes,  who  was  the  real  founder  of  the  Persian  Empire;  and 
some  think  he  is  the  '  Darius '  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  The  dates 
may  be  first  given,  and  then  Sayce's  account  of  this  Darius 
Hystaspes. 

Cyrus  takes  Babylon,  538  B.C. 

Cambyses,  his  son,  reigns  529-519  (eleven  years). 

Smerdis,  the  Magian,  reigns  seven  months. 

Darius  Hystaspes,  the  Persian,  reigus  517-486  (thirty-one  years). 


DARIUS  THE  MEDIAN.  41 

'  The  Empire  of  Cyrus  was  broken  up  after  the  death  of  Cambyses, 
and  had  to  be  reconquered  by  Darius  Hystaspes.  Darius  was  a 
Zoroastrian  monotheist  as  well  as  a  Persian,  and  under  him  and  his 
successors  polytheism  ceased  to  be  the  religion  of  the  State.  Twice 
during  his  reign  he  had  to  besiege  Babylon.  Hardly  had  he  been 
proclaimed  king  when  it  revolted  under  a  certain  Nidinta  Bel,  who 
called  himself,  "  Nebuchadrezzar,  the  son  of  Nabonidus."  Babylon 
endured  a  siege  of  two  years,  and  was  at  last  captured  by  Darius  only 
by  the  help  of  a  stratagem.  Six  years  afterwards  it  again  rose  in 
revolt,  under  an  Armenian,  who  professed,  like  his  predecessor,  to  be 
"  Nebuchadrezzar,  the  son  of  Nabonidus."  Once  more,  however,  it 
was  besieged  and  taken,  and  this  time  the  pretender  was  put  to  death 
by  impalement.  His  predecessor,  Nidinta  Bel,  seems  to  have  been 
slain  while  the  Persian  troops  were  forcing  their  way  into  the  captured 
city.  In  Nidinta  Bel  the  line  of  independent  Babylonian  Kings  may 
be  said  to  have  come  to  an  end,  since  the  leader  of  the  second  revolt 
was  not  a  native,  but  an  Armenian  settler.' 

Quite  an  attractive  theory  might  be  constructed  on  the  basis  of 
the  identification  of  Nidinta  Bel,  who  called  himself  a  'son  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,'  with  Belshazzar ;  and  of  Darius  the  Median  with 
Darius,  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  the  Persian.  But  there  are  serious 
difficulties  to  overcome  before  such  a  theory  can  be  accepted.  Two 
especially  need  attention.  The  Darius  of  Scripture  is  called  the  '  son 
of  Ahasuerus.'  But  Darius  Hystaspes  was  the  son  of  Achaemenes, 
the  founder  of  the  Persian  Royal  Family.  Then  the  Darius  of 
Scripture  is  said  to  have  been  '  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes  '  (Dan.  ix.  i). 
But  there  is  the  strongest  evidence  that  Darius  Hystaspes  was  of  pure 
Persian  race,  and  not  an  atom  of  evidence  that  he  had  any  Persian 
blood  in  his  veins.  It  is  among  his  proudest  boasts  that  he  is  an 
'  Aryan,  of  Aryan  descent,  a  Persian,  the  son  of  a  Persian.' 

The  explanation  that  is  perhaps  the  most  generally  accepted  is  thus 
stated  by  Professor  George  Rawlinson :  'It  is  said,  in  Dan.  v.  31, 
that  "  Darius  the  Median  took  the  kingdom,  and  in  ix.  i,  that  he 
"  was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldaeans."  Neither  of  these 
two  expressions  is  suitable  to  Cyrus  (with  whom  some  would 
identify  Darius,  making  out  Darius  to  be  a  royal  title).  The  word 
translated  "took"  means  "received,"  "took  from  the  hands  of 
another ;"  and  the  other  passage  is  yet  more  unmistakable.  "  Was 
made  king,"  exactly  expresses  the  original,  which  uses  the  Hophal  of 
the  verb,  the  Hiphel  of  which  occurs  when  David  makes  Solomon 
king  over  Israel  (i  Chron.  xxix.  20).  No  one  would  say  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  when  he  conquered  Darius  Codomannus,  that  he  "was 


42        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

made  king  over  Persia."  The  expression  implies  the  reception  of  a 
kingly  position  by  one  man  from  the  hands  of  another.  Now 
Babylon,  while  under  the  Assyrians,  had  been  almost  always  governed 
by  viceroys,  who  received  their  crown  from  the  Assyrian  monarchs. 
It  was  not  unnatural  that  Cyrus  should  follow  the  same  system.  He 
had  necessarily  to  appoint  a  governor,  and  the  "  Nabonidus  Tablet  " 
tells  us  that  he  did  so  almost  immediately  after  taking  possession  of 
the  city.  The  first  governor  appointed  was  a  certain  Gobryas,  whose 
nationality  is  doubtful ;  but  he  appears  to  have  been  shortly  after- 
wards sent  to  some  other  locality.  A  different  arrangement  must 
then  have  been  made.  That  Cyrus  should  have  appointed  a  Mede, 
and  allowed  him  to  take  the  title  of  "  King,"  is  in  no  way  improbable. 
He  was  fond  of  appointing  Medes  to  high  office,  as  we  learn  from 
Herodotus.  He  was  earnestly  desirous  of  conciliating  the  Babylonians, 
as  we  find  from  his  cylinder. 

'  It  was  not  many  years  before  he  gave  his  son,  Cambyses,  the  full 
royal  power  at  Babylon,  relinquishing  it  himself,  as  appears  from  a 
dated  tablet.  The  position  of  "  Darius  the  Median "  in  Daniel  is 
compatible  with  all  that  we  know  with  any  certainty  from  other 
sources.  We  have  only  to  suppose  that  Cyrus,  in  the  interval  between 
the  brief  governorship  of  Gobryas  and  the  sovereignty  of  Cambyses, 
placed  Babylon  under  a  Median  noble  named  Darius,  and  allowed 
him  a  position  intermediate  between  that  of  a  mere  ordinary  "governor" 
and  the  full  royal  authority.' 

But,  if  we  accept  this  explanation,  it  remains  to  consider  whether 
we  can  further  identify  this  Darius,  and  find  out  the  relationship  in 
which  he  stood  to  Cyrus.  The  most  satisfactory  theory  is  that 
attested  by  Josephus  and  Xenophon.  '  According  to  these  historians, 
Cyrus  conquered  Babylon  for  his  father-in-law,  Cyaxares  II.,  the  son 
of  Astyages,  and  did  not  come  to  the  throne  of  Babylon  as  an  inde- 
pendent prince  till  after  his  death.  Josephus  mentions  that  Darius 
was  known  to  the  Greeks  by  another  name ;  and  this,  it  has  been 
concluded,  was  Cyaxares,  the  name  given  to  him  by  Xenophon.' 

Dr.  C.  Geikie  summarizes  the  knowledge  which  is  at  present  at 
command  very  effectively  :  '  The  transition  from  the  Chaldaean  dynasty 
to  the  rule  of  the  conquerors  followed  at  once,  for  resistance  appears 
to  have  ceased  after  the  taking  of  Babylon.  Cyrus  was  now  supreme 
over  all  Asia,  from  India  to  the  Dardanelles  ;  but,  though  the  moving 
spirit  of  this  vast  revolution,  the  obscurity  of  his  original  position  as 
king  only  of  Elam,  and  his  relations  to  the  Medes,  and  perhaps  the 
Persians,  seem  to  have  led  him  for  the  time  to  deny  himself  the 
titular  sovereignty.  A  Median  prince  appears,  therefore,  to  have 


DARIUS  THE  MEDIAN.  43 

been  put  forward  by  him  as  the  nominal  king,  though  the  real  power 
remained  in  his  own  hands.  Elam  and  Persia  had  been  hitherto 
very  inferior  in  power  and  rank  to  Media,  the  haughty  clans  of  which 
followed  him  rather  as  their  adopted  chief  than  as  their  conqueror, 
and  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe  for  affronting  this  proud  assumption  of 
independence.  Cyrus  had  gained  the  leadership  by  affecting  to 
liberate  Media  from  a  tyrannical  despot,  and  the  support  of  the 
aristocracy  and  army  had  been  won  only  by  his  diplomacy.  A 
Median  prince  was  therefore  established  for  the  time  as  king  in 
Babylon — Darius,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  or  Cyaxares,  a  childless  and 
easily-managed  man  of  sixty-two.  Two  years  later  this  phantom  king 
died,  and  no  further  opposition  to  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  as  an 
Elamite,  being  possible,  he  openly  assumed  the  empire.' 

As  a  caution,  we  add  a  sentence  from  a  note  by  Deane:  'In 
modern  times  the  identity  of  Darius  with  Cyaxares  II.  has  been 
strongly  maintained,  though  without  paying  sufficient  attention  to  the 
very  slight  evidence  in  favour  of  the  existence  of  the  latter.' 

The  fact  is,  that  no  absolute  decision  can  be  made  in  relation  to 
either  Belshazzar,  or  Darius  the  Mede,  until  we  can  be  sure  which 
fall  of  Babylon  is  referred  to  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  what  is  its 
precise  date.  The  materials  for  forming  such  a  decision  are  certainly 
not  at  present  within  our  reach ;  and  we  must  be  satisfied  with  what 
may  seem  to  us  the  most  reasonable  explanatory  theory. 


Esau's  Wives. 

GENESIS  xxxvi.  2,  3  :  '  Esau  took  his  wives  of  the  daughters  of  Canaan  ;  Adah, 
the  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite,  and  Aholibamah,  the  daughter  of  Anah,  the 
daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite  ;  and  Bashemath,  Ishmael's  daughter,  sister  of 
Nebajoth.' 

Question. — Are  we  to  understand  that  Esau  thus  deliberately  cut 
himself,  and  his  descendants,  off  from  all  share  in  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant '?  And  how  can  this  list  of  names 
be  reconciled  with  the  lists  given  in  xxvi.  34 ;  xxviii.  9  ? 

Answer. — The  verse  heading  this  paragraph  belongs  to  a 
genealogical  table.  For  the  history  we  must  refer  to  the  earlier 
notices.  As  indicating  the  wild,  wayward,  wilful,  impulsive  character 
of  Esau,  we  are  told  of  the  indifference  he  showed  to  his  birthright, 
as  eldest  born,  and  the  readiness  with  which,  under  stress  of  hunger, 
he  sold  that  birthright  to  Jacob  for  *  bread  and  pottage  of  lentils ' 
(Gen.  xxv.  29-34).  It  has  become  the  fashion  to  compare  Jacob 
unfavourably  with  Esau ;  and  to  praise  Esau  in  a  very  uncritical 


44        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

fashion.  It  is  not  sufficiently  noticed  that  Scripture  exhibits  his 
character  in  this  incident,  and  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  commendable. 
The  man  who  has  no  restraint  of  his  animal  appetites,  is  not  likely  to 
have  restraint  of  his  bodily  passions,  or  mastery  of  his  will  and  moral 
nature.  And,  lest  we  should  form  this  unfavourable  comparison 
between  Jacob  and  Esau,  we  are  carefully  informed  of  the  troubles 
that  Esau's  wilfulness,  lack  of  self-control,  and  indifference  to  all 
higher  considerations,  made  in  the  family,  before  Jacob  guilefully 
secured  the  'blessing.'  In  Gen.  xxvi.  34,  35,  we  read:  'and  Esau 
was  forty  years  old  when  he  took  to  wife  Judith,  the  daughter  of 
Beeri  the  Hittite,  and  Bashemath,  the  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite, 
which  were  a  grief  of  mind  (bitterness  of  spirit)  unto  Isaac  and  to 
Rebekah.' 

It  may  be  said  that  the  grief  of  Isaac  was  caused  by  Esau  offend- 
ing against  tribal  sentiment,  which  required  the  leading  family  of  a 
tribe  to  marry  only  within  the  tribe,  or  strictly  allied  tribes,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  exclusiveness  of  each  race.  But  the  Scripture 
records  must  always  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  Jehovah  covenant. 
Isaac  regarded  Esau  as,  not  only  the  tribal  heir,  but  as  the  covenant- 
heir,  and  his  marriage  to  Canaanite  women  was  a  distinct  and  wilful 
offence  against  the  covenant  conditions,  an  open  declaration  that 
Esau  despised  the  covenant  if  it  interfered  with  his  following  the 
'  devices  and  desires  of  his  own  heart.' 

This  comes  out  yet  more  clearly  in  the  conduct  of  Esau,  when  he 
found  he  had  lost  the  patriarchal  blessing,  as  well  as  the  birthright. 
His  act  then  was  a  violent  expression  of  the  c  don't  care '  spirit — as 
if  he  had  said,  '  What  is  your  covenant  to  me  ?  I  can  get  along 
very  well  without  it.  Take  your  birthright,  and  your  blessing,  and  your 
covenant.  My  own  energy  and  enterprise  shall  stand  to  me  instead 
of  birthright  and  blessing  and  covenant.'  There  is  every  intimation 
that  Esau  meant  to  wash  his  hands  of  the  whole  covenant  business, 
by  going  and  taking  to  wife  the  daughter  of  Ishmael.  The  passage 
(Gen.  xxviii.  6-9)  gains  its  explanation  when  read  in  this  light. 
'  When  Esau  saw  that  Isaac  had  blessed  Jacob,  and  sent  him  away 
to  Padan-aram,  to  take  him  a  wife  from  thence ;  and  that  as  he 
blessed  him  he  gave  him  a  charge,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  take  a 
wife  of  the  daughters  of  Canaan ;  and  that  Jacob  obeyed  his  father 
and  his  mother,  and  was  gone  to  Padan-aram  ;  and  Esau  seeing  that 
the  daughters  of  Canaan  pleased  not  Isaac  his  father ;  then  went 
Esau  unto  Ishmael,  and  took  unto  the  wives  which  he  had  Mahalath 
the  daughter  of  Ishmael,  Abraham's  son,  the  sister  of  Nebajoth,  to 
be  his  wife.' 


ESAU'S  WIVES. 


45 


Seetzen  says  of  the  Arabs  :  *  They  always  marry  in  their  own  tribe, 
not  allowing  any  member  of  it  to  marry  into  another.' 

Dr.  C.  Geikie  supports  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  relation  of 
Esau's  conduct  to  the  covenant.  '  The  marriages  of  the  patriarchal 
families  decided  the  history  of  their  subsequent  branches.  Quiet 
progress  from  households  of  shepherds  to  a  settled  nation  turned 
necessarily  on  the  life  adopted,  and  that  again  was  largely  affected  by 
the  domestic  alliances  made.  The  daughter  of  Bethuel,  coming 
from  the  "  city  "  of  Nahor,  must  have  brought  with  her  the  instincts 
of  a  settled  life,  and  so,  also,  with  the  daughters  of  Laban,  Bethuel's 
son.  But  what  instincts  could  grow  up  in  the  children  of  Ishmael 
or  Esau,  except  those  of  the  wild,  unimproving  Arab  ;  born  as  they 
were  of  idolatrous  mothers,  wherever  the  wandering  camp  of  their 
parents  chanced  for  the  time  to  be  pitched  ?  It  was  a  Divine  impulse, 
therefore,  which,  acting  through  the  Eastern  craving  for  unmixed 
blood,  led  to  the  choice  of  brides,  for  Isaac  and  Jacob,  from  the  old 
home  of  the  race.  Esau's  leanings  were  only  too  plain  in  his  bring- 
ing home  two  Hittite  maidens  as  wives.  It  was  clear  that  the  tradi- 
tions of  Abraham  and  Isaac  had  no  hold  on  him,  and  that  their 
worship  of  the  One  only  God,  to  whom  he  himself  had  been 
dedicated  by  circumcision,  was  nothing  in  his  eyes.  To  build  up  a 
chosen  race,  the  heirs  of  the  Divine  covenant,  involved  strict  separa- 
tion from  the  heathen  around ;  but  Esau,  with  this  knowledge,  had 
deliberately  forsaken  his  own  race,  with  all  its  hopes  and  aspirations, 
and  identified  himself  with  those  from  whom  God  had  required  them 
to  keep  themselves  distinct.  No  wonder  that  it  was  "bitterness  of 
heart "  to  both  Isaac  and  Rebekah,  to  see  him  thus  break  away  from 
all  they  counted  most  sacred,  and  despise  his  birthright  by  slighting 
the  conditions  which  God  had  imposed  for  its  inheritance.' 

The  lists  of  Esau's  wives  are  as  follows : 


GEN.  xxvi.  34 ;  xxviii.  9  : 

1.  Judith,  daughter  of  Beerithe  Hittite. 

2.  Bashemath,   daughter   of    Elon    the 

Hittite. 

3.  Mahalath,  daughter  of  Ishmael,  sister 

of  Nebajoth. 


GEN.  xxxvi.  2 : 

1.  Aholibamah,     daughter     of     Anah, 

daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite. 

2.  Adah,  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite. 

3.  Bashemath,    daughter     of    Ishmael, 

sister  of  Nebajoth. 


There  is  manifest  confusion  of  names.  It  is  easy  to  recognise  the 
daughter  of  Elon,  and  the  daughter  of  Ishmael,  and  to  give  them 
their  right  names,  or  assume  that  they  had  two  names.  But  the  first 
wife  is  not  so  readily  recognisable.  Not  only  do  the  names  differ, 
but  also  the  parentage,  and  even  the  tribe  to  which  the  women 
belonged. 


46        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Suggestions  in  explanation  are  that  '  daughter  of  Zibeon '  should 
read  '  son  of  Zibeon,'  that  Anah  having  discovered  '  hot  springs  '  (true 
reading  of  word  mules,  in  verse  24),  was  also  called  Beeri,  or  the 
*  well-finder ;'  that  an  error  in  copying  made  Hivite  for  Hittite  ;  or 
that  the  general  name  Hittite  included  the  Hivites  and  Horites. 

*  We  may  conclude  that  Judith  the  daughter  of  Anah,  called  Beeri, 
from  his  finding  the  hot  springs,  and  the  grand-daughter  of  Zibeon 
the  Horite,  one  of  the  tribes  reckoned  in  the  great  Hittite  family, 
when  she  married  Esau,  assumed  the  name  of  Aholibamah,  mean- 
ing, "  the  tent  of  the  height."  ' 

Judgments  in  the  order  of  Providence. 

2  KINGS  vii.  19,  20 :  'And  that  lord  answered  the  man  of  God,  and  said,  Now, 
behold,  if  the  Lord  should  make  windows  in  heaven,  might  such  a  thing  be  ?  And 
he  said,  Behold,  thou  shalt  see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  shalt  not  eat  thereof.  And 
so  it  fell  out  unto  him  :  for  the  people  trode  upon  him  in  the  gate.' 

2  KINGS  ix.  25,  26  :  '  Then  said  Jehu  to  Bidkar  his  captain,  Take  up  and  cast 
him  (Jehoram)  in  the  portion  of  the  field  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite  ;  for  remember 
how  that  when  I  and  thou  rode  together  after  Ahab  his  father,  the  Lord  laid  this 
burden  upon  him  ;  surely  I  have  seen  yesterday  the  blood  of  Naboth,  and  the 
blood  of  his  sons,  saith  the  Lord,  and  I  will  requite  thee  in  this  plat,  saith  the 
Lord.' 

Question. — Are  we  justified^  from  such  cases  of  manifest  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy ',  in  establishing  as  a  truth  that  God's  providences 
are  ever  being  used  to  work  out  God  s  judgments  ? 

Answer. — This  certainly  appears  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  in- 
cidents narrated.  No  sign  is  given  of  any  special  interference  with 
the  workings  of  Providence,  and  yet  they  bring  round  precisely  what 
had  been  foretold.  It  does  not  seem  possible  to  assert  more  firmly 
that  moral  purposes  are  being  outwrought  by  the  common  and 
ordinary  movements  and  changes  of  men  and  nations.  In  these 
cases  before  us,  the  precision  of  fulfilment,  even  in  detail,  is  evidently 
designed  to  make  the  connection  between  providence  and  judgment 
very  clear  and  impressive. 

It  is  the  fashion  now  to  see,  in  what  our  fathers  called  '  Providence,' 
only  the  systematic  working  of  ordinary  laws.  Bible  history  and 
prophecy  are  the  constant  appeal  against  the  imprisoning  of  our  minds 
in  any  mere  mechanical  explanation  of  the  universe.  In  some  cases 
it  tells  us  beforehand  what  God  is  going  to  do,  so  that  when  the 
event  comes  round,  in  the  ordinary  way  of  providence,  we  may  make 
no  mistake  about  it,  but  fully  recognise  the  Divine  over-rulings. 

It  may  be  quite  true  that  the  Divine  purpose  in  providence  is  not 
revealed  to  anyone  of  us  in  these  days.  But  it  is  enough  that  the 
connection  has  been  fully  established,  in  the  Divine  Word,  by  illustra- 


JUDGMENTS  IN  THE  ORDER  OF  PROVIDENCE.  47 

tive  instances  such  as  those  now  before  us.  In  the  principles  accord- 
ing to  which  He  orders  and  governs  this  material  world,  and  the 
moral  world  in  its  relation  to  the  material,  God  is  certainly  the 
*  Unchangeable  one.' 

The  point  illustrated  in  the  above  incidents  will  be  more  clearly 
seen,  if  the  incidents  themselves  are  carefully  examined. 

There  was  a  famine  of  extraordinary  severity  in  Samaria,  in  con- 
sequence of  a  prolonged  siege  by  the  Syrians.  The  extremities  to 
which  the  people  were  reduced  are  vigorously  described.  They  were 
so  dreadful  that  even  motherly  instincts  were  overpowered.  In  his 
anger,  the  king  thought  to  make  a  scapegoat  of  Elisha  the  Prophet. 
Instead  of  turning  to  God  in  penitence  and  prayer,  the  king,  in 
ungovernable  rage,  tried  to  defy  God  by  attempting  to  kill  His 
prophet.  He  failed,  and  the  response  Elisha  was  told  to  make 
surprises  us.  God  proposed  to  relieve  the  dire  necessities  of  the 
people,  but  in  connection  with  His  mercy  there  should  be  a  stern 
rebuke  of  the  sin  of  mistrusting  God,  which  the  king  and  the  people 
would  do  well  to  heed.  '  Elisha  said,  Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord  ; 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  To-morrow  about  this  time  shall  a  measure  of 
fine  flour  be  sold  for  a  shekel,  and  two  measures  of  barley  for  a 
shekel,  in  the  gate  of  Samaria.  Then  a  lord  on  whose  hand  the  king 
leaned  answered  the  man  of  God,  and  said,  Behold,  if  the  Lord 
would  make  windows  in  heaven,  might  this  thing  be  ?  And  he  said, 
Behold,  thou  shalt  see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  shalt  not  eat  thereof.' 

Now,  the  lord  was,  from  the  human  view  of  things,  quite  right. 
Ordinary  providences  could  not  be  expected  to  bring  round  either 
such  a  relief,  or  such  a  judgment,  as  Elisha  anticipated.  But  God  is 
in  providence ;  controls  its  workings,  and  controls  them  for  moral 
ends.  He  could  shape  the  providences,  adjust  them,  refit  them 
together,  so  as  to  accomplish  the  promised  deliverance,  and  to  bring 
down  the  threatened  judgment.  There  is  the  Divine  Will  even 
in  orderly  providence. 

The  second  instance  is  connected  with  the  judgment  of  God  on  Ahab 
and  his  house,  for  all  his  crimes,  but  more  especially  for  his  iniquity 
in  the  matter  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite.  Here,  too,  we  have  antece- 
dent judgment  spoken,  but  no  special  provision  made  for  the  execu- 
tion of  the  judgment.  It  was  left  to  providence  to  work  round  the 
carrying  out  of  the  Divine  sentence.  And  providence  proved  to  be 
effective  for  the  operation  of  the  Divine  will,  because  the  Divine  will 
was  in  the  ordering  of  the  providences.  Events  now  can  no  more 
be  separated  from  the  Divine  mind  and  control,  than  in  the  olden 
times.  Providence  is  still,  as  ever,  the  Divine  instrumentality. 


48        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Meeting  Ahab,  when  returning  from  taking  possession  of  Naboth's 
vineyard,  Elijah  solemnly  declared  that  he  and  his  house  must  be 
punished  for  their  crimes.  As  for  himself,  the  town  dogs  would  lick 
up  his  blood  where  they  had  licked  the  blood  of  poor  stoned  Naboth. 
Jezebel  and  her  sons  would  be  left  exposed  to  the  dogs  and  vultures  ; 
and  some  special  form  of  woe  upon  his  house  should  be  connected 
with  that  very  plot  of  ground,  for  the  sake  of  which  he  had  soiled  his 
hands  with  blood. 

Exactly  what  Elijah  referred  to  was  only  known  through  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  threat.  '  Joram,'  the  king,  the  son  of  Ahab,  '  learning 
that  the  furious  driving  of  an  approaching  company  marked  the 
cavalcade  as  attending  Jehu,  and  suspecting  no  treachery,  ordered  his 
own  chariot,  and  rode  out  to  meet  him,  accompanied  by  King 
Ahaziah  of  Judah,  then  at  Jezreel  to  sympathize  with  his  wounded 
uncle.  They  expected  stirring  news  from  Ramoth,  and  were  eager  to 
hear  it.  "  Had  Hazael  made  peace  ?"  shouted  Joram  as  he  came 
near.  "Peace!"  cried  Jehu,  "what  peace  can  there  be  as  long 
as  Jezebel  acts  so  wickedly  as  she  does  ?"  Joram  felt  in  a  moment 
that  all  was  lost.  Muttering  the  words,  "Treachery,  Ahaziah,"  he 
turned  the  chariot  and  hastily  fled.  But  an  arrow  from  Jehu  pierced 
him  through  and  through  next  moment,  and  he  fell  out  of  his  chariot 
dying,  close  to  the  very  field  of  Naboth  in  which  Elijah  had  said  that 
the  crime  of  Ahab  should  be  avenged.  To  stop  and  cast  the  body 
into  Naboth's  ground,  that  the  words  of  the  prophet  might  be  literally 
fulfilled,  detained  Jehu  but  for  a  moment.' 

It  is  true  that  *  God's  providence  is  our  inheritance,'  but  it  is  also 
true  that  God's  providence  is,  in  His  hands,  the  instrument  of  our 
judgment. 

Balaam's  Prophecy. 

NUMBERS  xxiv.  17  :  '  I  shall  see  him,  but  not  now:  I  shall  behold  him,  but 
not  nigh  :  there  shall  come  a  star  out  of  Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  shall  rise  out  of 
Israel,  and  shall  smite  the  corners  of  Moab,  and  destroy  all  the  children  of 
Sheth.' 

Difficulty. — If  this  prophecy  refers  to  Messiah,  the  work  he  is 
expected  to  do  is  presented  in  very  unusual  and  extravagant  figures. 

Explanation. — What  appears  to  be  certain  is,  that  this  part  of 
the  prophecy  of  Balaam  found  its  first  fulfilment  in  the  military 
triumphs  of  David.  Only  through  the  figures  of  speech  suitable  to 
\h\sfirst  fulfilment  can  we  get  references  to  Messiah,  and  then  they 
must  be  treated  in  a  large  and  suggestive  manner.  The  terms  '  star 
out  of  Jacob,'  and  '  sceptre  out  of  Israel,'  can  readily  be  adapted  to 


BALAAM'S  PROPHECY.  49 

the  Messiah ;  but  it  requires  great  ingenuity  to  fit  '  smiting  the 
corners  of  Moab,'  and  '  destroying  the  children  of  Sheth,'  into  any 
conceivable  description  of  the  work  of  Messiah. 

It  was,  indeed,  no  part  of  the  mission  of  Balaam  to  proclaim  the 
Messiah.  The  subject-matter  of  his  prophecy  was  the  certain  triumph 
of  the  race  on  whose  tents  he  gazed.  It  was  befitting  that  his  vision 
should  culminate  in  that  king  who  brought  the  nation  to  the  height 
of  its  dignity.  So  far  as  David  was  a  type  of  Messiah,  we  may  say 
that  the  Messiah  was  referred  to  in  Balaam's  prophecy.  But  we  had 
better  regard  the  mental  vision  of  Balaam  as  limited  to  the  career  ot 
David. 

Ibn  Ezra  interprets  these  words  of  David.  For  David's  conquest 
of  the  Moabites,  see  2  Sam.  viii.  2.  The  expression  'children  of  Sheth/ 
would  be  better  translated  '  sons  of  tumult.'  David's  military  successes 
may  be  briefly  summarized.  The  Philistines  were  the  first  to  be 
attacked,  and  upon  David's  taking  their  royal  city  of  Gath,  they  seem 
to  have  been  so  far  subdued  as  to  give  him  little  or  no  subsequent 
trouble.  On  the  south-east  of  his  kingdom  David  repressed  the 
Edomites,  and  established  garrisons  in  their  country,  securing  thus 
the  eastern  arm  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  caravan  routes  to  the  marts 
and  harbours  of  Arabia.  On  the  north-east,  David  attacked 
Hadadezer,  King  of  Zobah,  defeating  him  with  great  loss.  East  of 
Jordan,  David  attacked  the  Moabites.  But  the  chief  war  of  his 
reign  was  that  conducted  against  Ammon.  The  result  of  these  wars 
was  the  extension  of  the  territories  of  Canaan  to  the  limits  foretold 
to  Abraham,  and  so  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  promise.  The  list 
of  David's  successes  closely  follows  the  prophecy  of  Balaam. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  says  that  the  Messianic  reference  of  this,  and 
the  following  verse,  is  now  recognised  by  Rosenmuller,  Baumgarten, 
Delitzsch,  Kurtz,  Tholuck,  and  Keil.  The  passage  he  regards  as 
'  fulfilled  primarily  and  partially  by  David,  and  perfectly  and  finally 
by  the  Son  of  David,  the  Christ,  the  King  of  kings,  who  has  already 
made  great  conquests  by  His  Gospel  over  the  whole  world,  and  will 
eventually  put  all  Moabites — the  enemies  of  His  Israel — under  His 
feet.'  But  however  excellent  this  may  be  as  a  sentiment,  it  involves 
a  curious  distortion  of  a  plain  historical  reference  to  the  actual 
countries  of  Moab  and  Edom.  Surely  it  is  better  to  say  the  Star  was 
David,  and  the  sceptre  the  symbol  of  his  rule ;  and  then  find  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  the  history. 


So       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Identification  of  So,   King  of  Egypt. 

2  KINGS  xvii.  4  :  '  And  the  king  of  Assyria  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea  :  for  he 
had  sent  messengers  to  So,  king  of  Egypt,  and  brought  no  present  to  the  king  of 
Assyria,  as  he  had  done  year  by  year  ;  therefore  the  king  of  Assyria  shut  him  up, 
and  bound  him  in  prison.' 

Difficulty. — The  Egyptian  lists  of  kings  have  no  such  name  as  So  ; 
and  the  name  nearest  like  it  stands  for  a  king  of  a  later  dynasty. 

Explanation. — Professor  George  Rawlinson  suggests  a  satis- 
factory removal  of  this  difficulty.  '  It  is  not  very  easy  to  identify  the 
"  King  of  Egypt "  here  mentioned,  as  one  with  whom  Hoshea,  the 
son  of  Elah,  sought  to  ally  himself,  with  any  of  the  known  Pharaohs. 
"  So  "  is  a  name  that  seems  at  first  sight  very  unlike  those  borne  by 
Egyptian  monarchs,  which  are  never  monosyllabic,  and  in  no  case 
end  in  the  letter  o.  A  reference  to  the  Hebrew  text  removes,  how- 
ever, much  of  the  difficulty,  since  the  word  rendered  by  "  So  "  in  our 
version  is  found  to  be  one  of  three  letters,  KID  (S  V  A),  all  of  which 
may  be  consonants.  (Our  readers  are  aware  that,  in  the  older 
Hebrew,  the  vowels  were  not  marked '  in  the  writing.)  As  the 
Masoretic  pointing  (or  putting  of  vowels  to  words),  which  our  trans- 
lators followed,  is  of  small  authority,  and  in  proper  names  of  scarcely 
any  authority  at  all,  we  are  entitled  to  give  to  each  of  the  three  letters 
its  consonant  force,  and,  supplying  short  vowels,  to  render  the  Hebrew 
word,  S  V  A,  by  "Seven."  Now  "  Seveh  "  is  very  near  indeed  to 
the  Manethonian  "Sevech-us,"  whom  the  Sebennytic  priest  makes 
the  second  monarch  of  his  twenty-fifth  dynasty ;  and  "  Sevechus  "  is 
a  natural  Greek  equivalent  of  the  Egyptian  "Shebek  "  or  "Shabak," 
a  name  borne  by  a  well-known  Pharaoh  (the  first  king  of  the  same 
dynasty),  which  both  Herodotus  and  Manetho  render  by  "Sabacos." 
It  has  been  generally  allowed  that  So  (or  Seveh)  must  represent  one 
or  other  of  these,  but  critics  are  not  yet  agreed  which  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred of  the  two.  (The  general  opinion  is  in  favour  of  Shabak.)' 

In  his  latest  work  on  '  Egypt,'  Professor  Rawlinson  gives  a  sketch 
of  the  twenty-fifth,  an  Ethiopian  dynasty.  {  Piankhi,  soon  after  his 
return  to  his  capital,  died  without  leaving  issue  ;  and  the  race  of 
Herhor  being  now  extinct,  the  Ethiopians  had  to  elect  a  king  from 
the  number  of  their  own  nobles.  Their  choice  fell  on  a  certain 
Kashta,  a  man  of  little  energy,  who  allowed  Egypt  to  throw  off  the 
Ethiopian  sovereignty  without  making  any  effort  to  prevent  it.  Bek- 
en-ranf,  the  son  of  Tafnekht,  was  the  leader  of  this  successful  re- 
bellion, and  is  said  to  have  reigned  over  all  Egypt  for  six  years. 
He  got  a  name  for  wisdom  and  justice,  but  he  could  not  alter  that 


IDENTIFICATION  OF  SO,  KING  OF  EGYPT.       51 

condition  of  affairs  which  had  been  gradually  brought  about  by  the 
slow  working  of  various  more  or  less  occult  causes,  whereby  Ethiopia 
had  increased,  and  Egypt  diminished  in  power,  their  relative  strength, 
as  compared  with  former  times,  having  become  inverted.  Ethiopia, 
being  now  the  stronger,  was  sure  to  reassert  herself,  and  did  so  in 
Bek-en-ranf's  seventh  year.  Shabak,  the  son  of  Kashta,  whose 
character  was  cast  in  a  far  stronger  mould  than  that  of  his  father, 
having  mounted  the  Ethiopian  throne,  lost  no  time  in  swooping  down 
upon  Egypt  from  the  upper  region,  and,  carrying  all  before  him, 
besieged  and  took  Sai's,  made  Bek-en-ranf  a  prisoner,  and  barbarously 
burnt  him  alive  for  his  rebellion.  His  fierce  and  sensuous  physi- 
ognomy is  quite  in  keeping  with  this  bloody  deed,  which  was  well 
calculated  to  strike  terror  into  the  Egyptian  nation,  and  to  ensure  a 
general  submission.  The  rule  of  the  Ethiopians  was  now,  for  some 
fifty  years,  firmly  established.  Shabak  founded  a  dynasty  which  the 
Egyptians  themselves  admitted  to  be  legitimate,  and  which  the 
historian  Manetho  declared  to  have  consisted  of  three  kings — Sabacos 
(or  Shabak),  Sevechus  (or  Shabatok),  and  Taracus  (or  Tehrak),  the 
Hebrew  Tirhakah.  The  extant  monuments  confirm  the  names,  and 
order  of  succession,  of  these  monarchs.  They  were  of  a  coarser  and 
ruder  fibre  than  the  native  Egyptians,  but  they  did  not  rule  Egypt  in  any 
alien  or  hostile  spirit.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  pious  worshippers 
of  the  old  Egyptian  gods;  they  repaired  and  beautified  the  old 
Egyptian  temples  ;  and,  instead  of  ruling  Egypt,  as  a  conquered 
province,  from  Napata,  they  resided  permanently,  or  at  any  rate 
occasionally,  at  the  Egyptian  capitals,  Thebes  and  Memphis.  There 
are  certain  indications  which  make  it  probable  that  to  some  extent 
they  pursued  the  policy  of  Piankhi,  and  governed  Lower  Egypt  by 
means  of  tributary  kings,  who  held  their  courts  at  Sai's,  Tanis,  and 
perhaps  Bubastis.  But  they  kept  a  jealous  watch  over  their  subject 
princes,  and  allowed  none  of  them  to  attain  a  dangerous  pre- 
eminence.' 

Geikie  prefers  to  regard  *  So '  as  the  second  king  of  this  dynasty, 
and  gives  the  following  reasons  for  his  opinion  :  '  A  strong  Egyptian 
faction  existed  in  Samaria  ;  perhaps  in  part  from  the  old  tradition  of 
Jeroboam  I.  having  found  a  home  on  the  Nile  in  his  exile,  and 
having  brought  thence  an  Egyptian  queen,  but,  still  more,  from  the 
wily  diplomacy  of  the  Pharaohs,  whose  agents  in  all  the  courts  of 
Palestine  constantly  urged  alliance  with  their  masters,  and  promised 
their  help  to  any  who  refused  to  pay  tribute  to  Assyria.  In  his 
difficult  position,  Hoshea  seems  to  have  tried  to  keep  favour  with  the 
Great  King  (of  Assyria),  while  secretly  treating  for  assistance  from  So, 

4—2 


52        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

or  Savah,  of  Egypt,  the  second  king  of  the  Ethiopian  dynasty,  in  a 
projected  revolt.  Savah  is  called,  in  Sargon's  annals,  "  The  Sultan," 
and  is  distinguished  from  "  the  Pharaoh,  the  King  of  Egypt."  He  was, 
in  fact,  the  lord  paramount,  with  an  Egyptian  king  under  him,  at 
Tanis,  besides  many  other  petty  kings  throughout  the  valley  of  the 
Nile  and  the  Delta.  The  affix  ka  was  added  in  Egypt  to  the  names 
of  the  Ethiopian  kings.  It  is  the  article.  Thus  Seveh,  or  Schava, 
becomes  Schabaka.  In  the  Bible  this  is  contracted  to  So.  On  the 
Assyrian  monuments  to  Schava.  Savah,  though  the  second  king  of 
the  dynasty,  was  regarded  as  its  real  founder,  from  his  ability  and 
deeds.' 

Dr.  Lumby  confirms  this  view.  '  In  the  Assyrian  records  (Smith, 
Assyrian  Canon,  p.  126)  there  appears  an  Egyptian  general,  whose 
name  is  represented  as  Sabakhi  or  Sibahe.  He  is  represented  as 
helping  the  King  of  Gaza  against  Assyria  and  being  overthrown.  This 
may  be  the  person  here  spoken  of.'  Date  about  720  B.C. 

The  objection  to  the  identification  of  So  with  the  Sabaco  of 
Herodotus  is,  that  Sabaco  did  not  reign  so  early.  Manetho  puts 
him  only  twenty-four  years  before  Tirhakah,  whose  first  year  was  690 
B.C.  But  Manetho's  numbers  cannot  be  relied  on. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  says  :  '  Like  other  founders  of  dynasties, 
as  Shishak  and  Psammeticus,  So  would  be  likely  to  revive  the  old 
Egyptian  claims  on  Syria,  and  to  take  advantage  of  any  opening  that 
offered,  in  order  to  reassert  those  sovereign  rights,  which  Egypt  never 
forgot,  though  she  had  often  to  let  them  remain  in  abeyance.  In 
the  inscriptions  of  Shebek  he  boasts  to  have  received  tribute  from  the 
"  King  of  Shara "  (Syria),  which  is  probably  his  mode  of  noticing 
Hoshea's  application.' 

The  Mysterious  Figure  of  Melchizedek. 

GENESIS  xiv.  18  :  'And  Melchizedek,  King  of  Salem,  brought  forth  bread  and 
wine  ;  and  he  was  the  priest  of  the  most  high  God.' 

Question. — Are  we  to  regard  Melchizedek  as  an  historical,  or  as  a 
legendary  figure  ? 

Answer. — Probably  in  this  case  there  is  an  historical  basis,  about 
which  legends  have  gathered,  and  it  is  now  nearly  impossible  to  detach 
the  history  from  the  legend. 

W.  J.  Deane  says  :  '  Round  this  personage  tradition  has  gathered 
a  crop  of  legends  which  have  no  credibility  in  themselves,  and  no 
foundation  in  history.  There  are  difficulties  in  this  narrative 
(Gen.  xiv.  18-20),  the  solution  of  which  has  never  been  successfully 


THE  MYSTERIOUS  FIGURE  OF  MELCH1ZEDEK.    53 

attained.  The  presence  of  Melchizedek,  "  priest  of  the  Most  High 
God  "  (El  Elyon),  in  the  midst  of  the  probably  heathen  population  of 
Salem,  is  perplexing.  We  are  scarcely  prepared  for  the  sudden 
appearance  of  this  Cohen  (priest),  offering  bread  and  wine  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first  fruits  of  the  spoil,  as  Philo  observes,  blessing 
Abram,  and  receiving  tithes  from  the  patriarch.  We  have  long 
looked  upon  Abram  as  the  one  witness  to  Monotheism  among  an 
idolatrous  people,  and  to  see  him  holding  a  position  inferior  to  this 
hitherto  unknown  chieftain  is  an  unexpected  difficulty.  Who  he  was, 
of  what  family,  or  nation,  is  left  in  utter  obscurity.  Suddenly  he 
comes  forth  in  the  page  of  history  for  one  brief  moment,  and  then 
his  name  is  heard  no  more  for  a  thousand  years,  when  it  is  found  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms  (Ps.  ex.) ;  a  thousand  years  more  passed  before 
it  occurs  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrew ;  so  that  there  is  a  mystery 
connected  therewith,  which  gives  to  it  a  preponderating  interest  and 
charm.  As  to  the  person  and  nationality  of  Melchizedek,  different 
opinions  have  been  held,  and  nothing  can  with  absolute  certainty  be 
determined.  Some  heretics,  we  are  told,  considered  him  to  have 
been  the  Holy  Ghost ;  Origen  and  Didymus  deemed  him  an  angel ; 
the  Jews,  in  order  to  account  for  his  acknowledged  superiority  to 
Abram,  identified  him  with  Shem,  the  most  pious  of  Noah's  sons, 
who,  according  to  their  genealogies,  lived  till  Isaac's  time.  Some 
Christians,  both  in  early  and  later  times,  have  maintained  that 
he  was  the  Son  of  God  appearing  in  human  form.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  he  was  an  historical  personage.  As  to  his 
nationality  we  can  conclude  nothing  from  his  Semitic  name,  as  that 
might  be  only  a  translation  of  his  original  appellation.  He  is  dwell- 
ing among  Hamites,  recognised  apparently  as  the  chief  of  a  settled 
Canaanitish  tribe.  If  he  had  been  of  Semitic  descent,  he  could 
scarcely  have  been  considered  so  entirely  disconnected  with  Levi 
and  the  Jewish  priesthood ;  his  sacerdotal  office  would  not  have  had 
the  isolated  character  which  is  attributed  to  it.  Monotheists  were 
to  be  found  among  alien  people,  such  as  Job  in  the  land  of  Uz,  and 
Balaam  in  Pethor.  It  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  he  was  of  the 
same  blood  as  those  among  whom  he  dwelt,  preserving  in  himself 
that  revelation  of  the  true  God  which  was  maintained  by  Noah  and 
his  immediate  descendants.' 

Taking  a  strictly  historical  view  of  Melchizedek,  very  striking  and 
very  hopeful  suggestions  are  made  by  Miss  Corbaux,  in  the  '  Journal 
of  Sacred  Literature.'  '  It  may  be  safely  concluded  that,  though 
reigning  in  Canaan,  Melchizedek  was  not  of  one  of  the  depraved  and 
idolatrous  Canaanitish  tribes.  Miss  Corbaux,  writing  concerning  the 


54        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Rephaim,  a  distinct  race,  supposes  that  Salem  was  the  central  seat  of 
their  authority,  and  that  the  king  who  reigned  there  was  the  supreme 
head  of  their  nation,  to  whom  the  different  tribes  were  subordinate. 
If  Melchizedek  were  a  mere  local  chief,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the 
King  of  Sodom,  an  Emim  prince,  and  why  Abraham,  should  pay  him 
the  deference  they  did.'  '  But  the  moment  the  important  fact  comes 
in  by  way  of  explanation,  supported  by  sufficient  extrinsic  evidence, 
that  the  King  of  Salem  was  the  supreme  chief  of  the  entire  nation, 
and  the  local  chiefs  of  tribes  were  his  subordinates,  the  whole 
transaction  becomes  perfectly  intelligible,  because  we  understand 
the  mutual  relation  of  all  parties  concerned  in  it.  As  feudal  lord  of 
the  land,  in  which  Abraham  had  settled,  Abraham  paid  him  this 
tribute.  As  head  of  the  national  body  to  which  the  Emim  belonged, 
the  chief  of  the  Emim  sanctioned  it.  As  head  of  the  state  in 
religious  as  well  as  in  temporal  concerns,  according  to  the  primitive 
patriarchal  order,  Melchizedek  received  the  tribute,  both  as  a  votive 
offering  of  gratitude  from  the  givers  for  the  rescue  of  the  goods,  and 
as  an  acknowledgment  of  his  lordship  over  the  goods  rescued. 

On  the  question  whether  he  was  of  Canaanite  or  Semitic  race,  the 
Speaker's  Commentary  says :  '  The  name  and  titles  of  Melchizedek 
are  Semitic  ;  but  this  proves  nothing.  He  dwelt  among  Canaanites  ; 
but  there  had  probably  been  Semitic  inhabitants  of  the  land  before 
the  emigration  of  the  Canaanites ;  and  so  Melchizedek,  who  was  a 
worshipper  of  the  true  God,  may  have  been  one  of  the  original 
Semitic  stock.  There  were,  however,  worshippers  of  the  true  God, 
besides  the  Israelites,  retaining  patriarchal  truth,  as  Job  and  Balaam, 
and  so  it  is  not  certain  that  Melchizedek  was  a  descendant  of  Shem.' 

Dr.  C.  Geikie  brings  out  some  points  of  interest  in  his  note. 
'  Melchizedek's  pure  and  holy  faith  in  the  "  Most  High  God,"  was 
doubtless  a  relic  of  the  anciently  universal  recognition  of  the  One 
Creator,  and  is  one  of  the  proofs  incidentally  afforded  in  such  other 
cases  as  that  of  Abimelech,  King  of  Gerar ;  Jethro,  the  Midianite  ; 
Balaam,  from  the  mountains  of  Assyria,  and  Job  the  Arab,  that  God 
has  at  no  time  left  Himself  without  a  witness  even  in  lands  secluded 
from  the  direct  privileges  of  His  people.  El  Elion,  the  name  given 
by  Melchizedek  to  God,  was  not,  indeed,  new  or  unknown,  for  El,  or 
II,  "  The  Mighty  One,"  was  the  ancient  supreme  god  of  the  Semitic 
races  of  Babylonia,  and  was  known  in  Palestine  by  the  Phoenicians ; 
and  even  the  great  title,  Elion,  "  The  Highest,"  had  been  adopted  by 
them,  corrupt  and  idolatrous  as  they  had  become.  With  them, 
indeed,  both  names  only  marked  one  Divine  Being  among  many, 
though  perhaps  the  highest ;  nor  is  it  to  be  overlooked  that  while 


GO  LI  A  TITS  HEAD  AND  ARMOUR.  55 

Melchizedek  uses  the  general  expression  "The  Most  High  God," 
Abraham,  in  repeating  it,  prefixes  the  personal  name  "  Jehovah,"  as  if 
to  claim  for  Him  the  exclusive  right  to  supreme  divinity.  With  this 
weighty  addition,  though  not  without  it,  he  recognises  the  God  of 
Melchizedek  as  Him  whom  he  himself  worshipped.' 

Dean  Stanley's  reference,  though  familiar,  is  too  suggestive  to  be 
omitted.  Melchizedek  *  appears  for  a  moment,  and  then  vanishes 
from  our  view  altogether.  It  is  this  which  wraps  him  round  in 
that  mysterious  obscurity  which  has  rendered  his  name  the  symbol  of 
all  such  sudden,  abrupt  apparitions,  the  interruptions,  the  disloca- 
tions, if  one  may  so  say,  of  the  ordinary,  even  succession  of  cause  and 
effect  and  matter  of  fact  in  the  various  stages  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  (Heb.  vii.  3).  No  wonder  that,  in  Jewish  times,  he  was 
regarded  as  some  remnant  of  the  earlier  world — Arphaxad  or  Shem. 
No  wonder  that  when,  in  after  times,  there  arose  One  whose  appear- 
ance was  beyond  and  above  any  ordinary  influence  of  time,  or  place, 
or  earthly  descent,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  could 
find  no  fitter  expression  for  this  aspect  of  His  character  than  the 
mysterious  likeness  of  Melchizedek.' 


What  became  of  Goliath's   Head   and   Armour? 

I  SAMUEL  xvii.  54  :  '  And  David  took  the  head  of  the  Philistine,  and  brought  it 
to  Jerusalem  ;  but  he  put  his  armour  in  his  tent.' 

i  SAMUEL  xxi.  9 :  '  And  the  priest  said,  The  sword  of  Goliath  the  Philistine, 
whom  thou  slewest  in  the  valley  of  Elah,  behold,  it  is  here  wrapped  in  a  cloth 
behind  the  ephod  :  if  thou  wilt  take  that,  take  it :  for  there  is  no  other  save  that 
here.  And  David  said,  There  is  none  like  that ;  give  it  me.' 

Difficulty. — -Jerusalem  at  this  time  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Jebusites,  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  David's  taking  the  head  to 
that  city.  And  besides •,  David  had  no  tent ;  he  was  only  a  visitor  at 
the  camp,  and  the  sword  was  found  afterwards,  not  in  David's  tent, 
but  in  the  sacred  Tabernacle  at  Nob. 

Explanation. — The  two  facts  presented  in  this  statement  of  diffi- 
culty should  be  at  once  and  fully  recognised  and  admitted.  It  is  true 
that,  in  some  sense,  the  Israelites  dwelt  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  though 
the  fortress  of  Jebus  had  not  been  taken  (see  Josh.  xv.  63  ;  Jud. 
i,  8).  But  it  is  also  quite  true  that  Jerusalem  occupied,  at  the  time, 
no  such  relation  to  Saul,  or  to  David,  or  to  the  kingdom,  as  could 
have  suggested  it  as  a  store-place  to  David.  And  there  was  no  sense 
in  which  David  could  be  said  to  have  either  a  tent  or  a  dwelling. 

We  should  naturally  expect  that  David,  having  conquered  in  the 
strength  of  God,  and  as  a  testimony  of  the  power  they  have  who 


56        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

trust  in  God,  would  feel  an  impulse  to  dedicate  the  trophies  of  his 
victory  to  God.  It  would  be  a  very  unfitting  close  of  the  narrative 
if  we  had  to  understand  that  David  made  a  public  boast  over  his 
fallen  enemy,  and  enriched  himself  with  the  spoils  of  battle.  The 
'  tent '  referred  to  must  be  the  sacred  tent,  or  tabernacle,  of  Jehovah, 
and  there  the  sword  was  found,  carefully  wrapped  up,  only  a  little 
time  later  on  (i  Sam.  xxi.  9).  All  difficulty  would  be  removed  if 
we  might  assume  that  the  Tabernacle  was  at  this  time  erected  at  Nob, 
which  was  near  to,  and  overlooking,  Jerusalem.  What  we  understand 
David  to  have  done  was  this :  taken  both  the  head  and  armour  to 
the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  fixed  up  the  head  near  the  sacred 
tent,  where  it  would  speedily  decay  ;  and  left  the  armour  in  charge  of 
the  priests  as  historical  treasures.  We  know  positively  that*  the 
Tabernacle  was  at  Nob,  a  little  later  in  Saul's  reign  (i  Sam.  xxi.  i), 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  think  it  had  been  placed  there  before  the 
conflict  with  Goliath.  Nob,  as  one  of  the  eminences  near  Jerusalem, 
may,  in  a  general  way,  be  spoken  of  as  '  Jerusalem.' 

Imagination  has  filled  in  the  Bible  record  very  variously.  Eder- 
sheim  says :  '  The  head  of  the  Philistine  he  nailed  on  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem,  right  over  in  sight  of  the  fort  which  the  heathen  Jebusites 
still  held  in  the  heart  of  the  land  ;  the  armour  he  laid  up  in  his  home 
as  his  part  of  the  spoil.'  Wordsworth  explains  the  '  tent '  as  *  David's 
abode  in  Bethlehem ;'  but  there  is  no  hint  given  of  his  having  any 
separate  dwelling.  Dr.  Geikie  is  very  inventive.  '  From  the  battle- 
field David  returned  for  a  time  to  his  father's  house,  apparently, 
however,  after  a  visit  to  Jerusalem,  which,  though  still  held  by 
Jebusites,  was  largely  inhabited  by  Hebrews.  In  the  care  of  some  of 
his  friends,  among  these,  he  left,  for  the  present,  the  grisly  memory  of 
his  victory — the  head  of  the  fallen  man.'  But  no  hint  is  given  of  a 
reason  why  Jerusalem  was  chosen  as  the  treasury.  Geikie  adds  : 
*  The  huge  armour  he  kept,  meanwhile,'  in  his  '  own  'tent  '  in  the 
hills,  and  the  sword  was  laid  up  in  his  father's  house  till  it  could  be 
transferred  to  the  Tabernacle  at  Nob,  as  an  offering  of  grateful  thanks 
to  Jehovah.'  But  reference  to  his  '  father's  house '  is  not  made  in  the 
narrative. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  recognises  that  there  was  no  reason 
why  Jerusalem  should  at  this  time  be  selected  as  the  place  to  put  the 
trophy  of  David's  victory  in  ;  and  suggests  that  this  was  not  actually 
done  until  David  had  made  Jerusalem  his  capital,  and  the  treasury  of 
his  trophies  (2  Sam.  v.  5  ;  viii.  7),  but  it  is  mentioned,  at  this 
particular  time,  by  anticipation,  in  the  usual  way  of  Hebrew  narrative. 
1  It  would  be  quite  in  accordance  with  David's  piety  that  he  should 


LEFT  VNCIRCUMCISED.  57 

immediately  dedicate  to  God  the  arms  taken  from  the  Philistine,  in 
acknowledgment  that  the  victory  was  not  his  own  but  the  Lord's.' 

It  is  the  Eastern  custom  to  exhibit  the  heads  of  conquered  kings  or 
generals ;  but  we  need  not  think  of  them  as  being  kept  a  long  time. 
They  were  placed  on  poles  in  some  conspicuous  position,  and  soon 
fell  to  pieces. 

As  so  often,  Dean  Stanley  presents  the  solution  which  can  hardly 
fail  to  be  acceptable.  '  Two  trophies  long  remained  of  the  battle — 
the  head  and  the  sword  of  the  Philistine.  Both  were  ultimately 
deposited  at  Jerusalem  •  but,  meanwhile,  were  hung  up  behind  the 
ephod  in  the  Tabernacle  at  Nob.  The  mention  of  Jerusalem  may 
be  either  an  anticipation  of  the  ultimate  disposition  of  the  relics  in 
David's  Sacred  Tent  there  (2  Sam.  vi.  17),  or  a  description  of  the 
Tabernacle  at  Nob,  dose  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  sword  is  mentioned 
(i  Sam.  xxi.  9).' 

Left  Uncircumcised. 

JOSHUA  v.  5  :  '  Now  all  the  people  that  came  out  were  circumcised  :  but  all  the 
people  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness  by  the  way  as  they  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt,  them  they  had  not  circumcised.' 

Question. —  What  was  the  reason  for  the  neglect  of  the  Divine 
requirement  of  circumcision  during  all  the  later  years  of  the  wilderness 
journey  ? 

Answer. — From  the  time  that  the  judgment  of  Jehovah  fell  on 
the  Israelites,  on  account  of  their  rebellion,  after  receiving  the  report 
of  the  spies,  they  were  regarded  by  Jehovah  as  being  out  of  the 
covenant,  or,  at  least,  the  covenant  relations  were  regarded  as 
suspended,  and  therefore  the  sign  of  the  covenant  could  not  be  per- 
mitted to  continue.  The  significance  of  this  suspension  of  the 
covenant,  and  of  its  sign,  can  only  be  understood  by  considering  the 
Divine  use  made  of  the  rite  of  circumcision. 

It  is  now  known  that  the  rite  was  not  invented  afresh  for  the 
Abrahamic  race.  The  Egyptians  had  practised  it  from  immemorial 
antiquity,  and  traces  of  it  are  found  in  many  unrelated  tribes  and 
nations.  It  was  made  a  requirement  by  God  of  Abraham  and  his 
posterity.  When  God  solemnly  established  and  ratified  His  covenant 
with  Abraham,  as  narrated  in  Gen.  xvii.,  it  is  added,  'Everyman 
child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  of  your  foreskin  ;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  Me  and  you.'  '  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an 
everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncircumcised  man  child,  whose  flesh 


58        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people ;  he  hath  broken  My  covenant.'  The  strict  and  continued 
observance  of  the  rite  was  to  be  a  continuous  acknowledging  of  the 
covenant  relations  and  claims. 

If,  then,  God  was  pleased,  in  judgment  and  in  discipline,  to  sus- 
pend for  a  time  the  covenant-relations,  nothing  could  be  a  more 
efficient  reminder  of  the  fact,  that  the  people  were  under  discipline, 
than  the  suspension  of  this  familiar  rite.  They  were  not  allowed  to 
bind  themselves  to  the  covenant  by  the  act  of  circumcising  their 
children,  because  the  covenant-relations  were  held  in  abeyance.  But 
this  explanation  depends  on  our  taking  a  correct  view  of  the  thirty- 
eight  years  of  wandering. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  even  in  the  historical  record,  the  events 
of  this  period  are  unnoticed,  as  if  they  did  not  belong  to  the  history 
of  the  covenant ;  and  verse  6  of  Joshua  v.  seems  distinctly  to  connect 
the  non-observance  of  the  rite  with  the  judgment  resting  on  the 
people.  It  reads  thus  :  '  For  (as  if  presenting  the  reason)  the  children 
of  Israel  walked  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  till  all  the  people  that 
were  men  of  war,  which  came  out  of  Egypt,  were  consumed,  because 
they  obeyed  not  the  voice  of  the  Lord :  unto  whom  the  Lord  sware 
that  he  would  not  show  them  the  land,  which  the  Lord  sware  unto  their 
fathers  that  He  would  give  us,  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and  honey.' 

One  writer  suggests  that  possibly  their  nomad  life,  perpetually 
moving,  may  sufficiently  account  for  their  not  circumcising  during 
the  wilderness-period ;  but  this  writer  adds  :  '  Some  have  supposed 
them,  as  it  were,  in  a  state  of  rejection  until  the  disobedient  genera- 
tion had  died  out."  The  crossing  of  Jordan  was  a  sign  of  the 
covenant  being  re-established,  and  therefore  at  that  time  the  rite 
could  be  fittingly  resumed. 

Waller  says  :  '  As  the  narrative  stands,  it  is  not  quite  obvious  why 
uncircumcision  is  called  "  the  reproach  of  Egypt,"  verse  9,  whereas 
all  the  people  bom  in  Egypt  were  circumcised.  The  uncircum- 
cision attached  to  those  who  were  born  in  the  wilderness,  during  the 
years  of  wandering.  But  the  period  of  wandering,  between  the  de- 
parture from  Kadesh-barnea  and  the  return  to  Kadesh  (thirty-seven 
and  a  half  years,  Num.  xv.-xix.  inclusive),  is  a  kind  of  blank  in  the 
story  of  the  Exodus.  The  five  chapters  which  belong  to  it  in  the 
Book  of  Numbers  contain  no  note  of  progress  as  to  time  or  place. 
The  people  had  "  turned  back  in  their  hearts  to  Egypt "  (Acts  vii. 
39  ;  Num.  xiv.  4),  and  were  bearing  the  reproach  of  their  apostasy  all 
those  years,  "the  reproach  of  Egypt."  Suffering  under  the  "breach 
of  promise  "  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xiv.  34),  they  appear  to  have  omitted 


DA  VID'S  LION  AND  BEAR.  59 

the  sign  of  the  covenant,  as  though  they  were  no  longer  the  people 
of  God.  The  passage  of  Jordan  was  the  practical  proof  of  Israel's 
restoration  to  Divine  favour,  and  they  were  then  brought  into  covenant 
with  Him  once  more.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  may  be  cited  as  a  further  authority  for 
the  explanation  given  above.  '  It  was  not  (as  Rosenmiiller  and 
Kurtz,  after  many  older  authorities)  that  during  the  wanderings  they 
were  constantly  on  the  move,  or  at  least  uncertain  of  their  stay  in  any 
given  place ;  for  they  remained  at  Sinai  eleven  months,  and  must 
have,  on  many  other  occasions,  been  stationary  for  weeks  together 
The  true  reason  is  that  suggested  by  Hengstenberg,  after  Calvin  and 
others,  viz.,  that  the  sentence  of  Num.  xiv.  28,  sqq.,  placed  the  whole 
nation  for  the  time  under  a  ban ;  and  that  the  discontinuance  of 
circumcision,  and  the  consequent  omission  of  the  Passover,  was  a 
consequence  and  a  token  of  that  ban.  .  .  .  For  the  time  the  cove- 
nant was  abrogated,  though  God's  purpose  to  restore  it  was  from 
the  first  made  known,  and  confirmed  by  the  visible  marks  of  His 
favour  which  he  still  vouchsafed  to  bestow  during  the  wandering.' 

David's  Lion  and  Bear. 

I  SAMUEL  xvii.  34-36 :  '  And  David  said  unto  Saul,  Thy  servant  kept  his 
father's  sheep,  and  there  came  a  lion,  and  a  bear,  and  took  a  lamb  out  of  the  flock  : 
and  I  went  out  after  him,  and  smote  him,  and  delivered  it  out  of  his  mouth  ;  and 
when  he  arose  against  me,  I  caught  him  by  his  beard,  and  smote  him,  and  slew 
him.  Thy  servant  slew  both  the  lion  and  the  bear.' 

Difficulty. — There  appear  to  be  two  distinct  incidents  referred  to, 
but  the  details  given  are  not  suitable  to  both  cases. 

Explanation.— The  'Revised  Version  ' reads  the  first  sentence, 
'  when  there  came  a  lion,  or  a  bear ;'  but  this  does  not  get  over  the 
difficulty,  because,  in  the  following  verses,  two  cases  are  referred  to 
as  having  actually  occurred. 

We  have,  in  these  verses,  an  instance  of  the  hurried  speech  of  a 
man  in  a  time  of  excitement.  The  natural  hurry  and  almost 
incoherency  are  precisely  caught.  David  mixes  things  up,  for  it  is 
not  possible,  at  such  a  moment,  to  be  logically  precise.  His  point  comes 
out  clearly  enough.  He  does  but  summarize  the  instances  in  which 
his  promptitude  and  courage,  with  the  help  of  God,  had  overcome 
serious  perils.  Whether  there  had  been  one  case,  or  two,  or  fen,  in 
which  his  shepherd's  prowess  and  his  faith  in  God  had  been  tried, 
was  quite  a  secondary  consideration.  He  had  trusted  in  God,  and 
done  exploits ;  and  trusting  in  God,  he  would  do  exploits  again. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  makes  an  unnecessary  effort  to  account 
for  the  apparent  confusion  of  thought  and  speech.  '  The  narrative 


60        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

does  not  make  it  certain  whether  the  lion  and  the  bear  came  on  one 
and  the  same,  or  on  two  different  occasions.  If  it  was  one  occasion, 
the  probability  would  be  that,  the  bear  having  seized  a  lamb,  and 
carrying  it  off,  a  lion  appeared  to  dispute  the  prize  with  the  bear,  or 
with  David  after  he  had  taken  it  from  the  bear,  and  that  David  slew 
first  one,  and  then  the  other.  If  on  different  occasions,  David's 
description  applies  to  each.'  But  it  may  fairly  be  urged  that  the 
habits  of  lions  and  bears  are  so  different,  that  they  are  not  likely  to 
have  hunted  in  any  sense  together ;  and  the  expression,  *  caught  him 
by  the  beard '  is  only  suitable  to  the  lion.  It  is  surely  simpler  to 
say,  that  David  hurriedly  recalled  two  cases,  and  gave  the  details  of 
one  only. 

Dean  Stanley  treats  the  passage  as  describing  a  single  incident. 
'  In  those  early  days,  when  the  forests  of  Southern  Palestine  had  not 
been  cleared,  it  was  the  habit  of  the  wild  animals  which  usually 
frequented  the  heights  of  Lebanon,  or  the  thickets  of  the  Jordan,  to 
make  incursions  into  the  pastures  of  Judaea.  From  the  Lebanon  at 
times  descended  the  bears.  From  the  Jordan  ascended  the  lion,  at 
that  time  infesting  the  whole  of  Western  Asia.  These  creatures, 
though  formidable  to  the  flocks,  could  always  be  kept  at  bay  by  the 
determination  of  the  shepherds.  Sometimes  pits  were  dug  to  catch 
them.  Sometimes  the  shepherds  of  the  whole  neighbourhood  formed 
a  line  on  the  hills,  and  joined  in  loud  shouts  to  keep  them  off. 
Occasionally  a  single  shepherd  would  pursue  the  marauder,  and  tear 
away  from  the  jaws  of  the  lion  morsels  of  the  lost  treasure — two  legs, 
or  a  piece  of  an  ear.  Such  feats  as  these  were  performed  by  the 
youthful  David.  It  was  his  pride  to  pursue  these  savage  beasts,  and 
on  one  occasion  he  had  a  desperate  encounter  at  once  with  a  lion 
and  a  she  bear.  The  lion  had  carried  off  a  lamb  ;  he  pursued  the 
invader,  struck  him  with  the  boldness  of  an  Arab  shepherd,  with  his 
staff  or  switch,  and  forced  the  lamb  out  of  his  jaws.  The  lion  turned 
upon  the  boy,  who  struck  him  again,  caught  him  by  the  mane,  or  the 
throat,  or,  according  to  another  version,  by  the  tail,  and  succeeded  in 
destroying  him.' 

The  Origin  of  Moab  and  Ammon. 

GENESIS  xix.  37-38  :  'And  the  firstborn  bare  a  son, and  called  his  name  Moab  : 
the  same  is  the  father  of  the  Moabites  unto  this  day.  And  the  younger,  she  also 
bare  a  son,  and  called  his  name  Ben-ammi  :  the  same  is  the  father  of  the  children 
of  Ammon  unto  this  day.' 

Question. —  What  value  may  be  reasonably  attached  to  the  tradi- 
tion explanatory  of  the  origin  of  these  nations? 

Answer.—  De    Wette,   Tuch,  Knobel,  etc.,  regard   this  narrative 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MOAB  AND  AMMON.  61 

concerning  Lot  as  an  invention  of  a  later  age,  and  due  to  the  national 
hatred  of  the  Israelites  against  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  We 
confess  to  some  sympathy  with  this  view.  It  is  a  curious  character- 
istic of  Eastern  people,  that  they  vent  their  anger  against  a  man  by 
saying  shameful  things  of  his  mother.  It  would  be  in  harmony  with 
this  peculiarity  if  annoyance  at  a  nation  found  expression  in  the  in- 
vention of  some  shameful  origin  for  it.  The  origins  of  all  nations, 
being  pre-historic,  are  always  uncertain  and  cloudy.  Some  poet- 
soul  arises,  who  recognises  the  genius  of  the  nation,  and  then  invents 
for  it  some  symbolic  beginning,  which  after  ages  treat  as  if  it  were 
history.  In  this  way  the  story  of  Romulus  and  Remus  being  suckled 
by  a  wolf  was  no  doubt  created,  to  account  for  the  characteristic 
strength  of  the  Romans  as  a  people.  It  may  be  fairly  urged  that  the 
origin  of  Moab  and  Ammon  is  such  an  imaginative  picture,  coloured 
by  the  enmity  felt  towards  them  by  the  Israelites.  It  has  been 
argued  that  we  do  not  come  into  the  region  of  what  can  be  called 
history  until  the  Israelites  are  brought  into  relations  with  civilized 
Egypt.  The  records  of  Abraham  are  reasonably  assumed  to  blend 
the  legendary  with  the  historical. 

The  Speakers  Commentary,  referring  to  De  Wette's  idea,  that  this 
narrative  had  its  origin  in  the  national  hatred  of  the  Israelites  to  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites,  replies,  that  the  Pentateuch  by  no  means 
shows  such  national  hatred  (see  Deut.  ii.  9,  10) :  and  the  Book  of 
Ruth  gives  the  history  of  a  Moabitess  who  was  ancestress  of  David 
himself.  It  was  not  until  the  Moabites  had  seduced  the  Israelites 
to  idolatry  and  impurity  (Num.  xxv.  i),  and  had  acted  in  an  un- 
friendly manner  towards  them,  hiring  Balaam  to  curse  them,  that 
they  were  excluded  from  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  for  ever 
(Deut.  xxiii.  3,  4). 

It  is  pointed  out  that  the  name  Moab  (Me-ab)  means,  '  Son  of  my 
father  ;'  and  Ammon  '  Son  of  my  people,'  i.e.  one  born  of  intercourse 
with  her  own  kin  and  family.  So  the  very  names  indicate  the 
incestuous  origin  of  the  tribes. 

Lange  says  :  'When  later  debauchery  (Num.  ii.  25)  and  irnpiety 
(e.g.  2  Kings  iii.  26)  appear  as  fundamental  traits  in  the  character 
and  cultus  of  both  peoples,  we  can  at  least  hold  with  equal  justice 
that  these  inherited  sins  came  with  them  from  their  origin,  as  that  the 
tradition  of  their  origin  has  moulded  their  character.' 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  a  narrative  which  assumes  Lot's 
absolute  ignorance  is,  on  the  face  of  it,  somewhat  unreasonable,  and 
belongs  to  the  region  of  imagination  rather  than  of  historical  fact. 


62        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Two  Accounts  of  David's  Magnanimity. 

i  SAMUEL  xxiv.  7  :  'So  David  stayed  his  servants  with  these  words,  and  suf- 
fered them  not  to  rise  against  Saul.' 

I  SAMUEL  xxvi.  9  :  '  And  David  said  to  Abishai,  Destroy  him  not :  for  who  can 
stretch  forth  his  hand  against  the  Lord's  anointed,  and  be  guiltless?' 

Question. — Is  there  reasonable  ground  for  the  suggestion  that  these 
two  chapters  contain  differing  traditions  of  one  incident? 

Answer. — The  suggestion  is  made  on  such  authority,  and  sup- 
ported by  so  good  arguments,  that  it  certainly  calls  for  a  patient  and 
careful  consideration.  Ewald  regards  the  earlier  narrator's  fragments 
as  defective  here,  but  says  there  must  have  been  some  original 
narrative,  or  the  representations  that  we  have  would  be  inexplicable. 
He  points  out  that,  in  the  popular  traditions,  the  story  of  David's 
generosity,  in  sparing  Saul's  life,  was  almost  as  great  a  favourite  as 
the  tale  of  his  combat  with  Goliath,  and  accordingly  was  told  as  often, 
and  finally  assumed  as  many  different  forms.  '  Two  narratives  of 
this  description  are  contained  in  the  Book  of  Samuel,  both  alike 
flowing  into  that  style  of  representation  in  which  the  simple  act  sinks 
into  insignificance  before  the  grandeur  of  the  sentiments  which  it 
illustrated,  yet  each  bearing  in  its  style  of  composition  traces  of  a 
special  narrator.' 

Lord  Arthur  Hervey,  Z>.D.,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  has  given 
this  question  most  careful  attention,  and  lays  out  in  order  the 
materials  for  forming  a  judgment,  though  with  an  evident  bias  towards 
the  view  that  we  have  two  traditions  of  one  event.  His  entire  note 
may  be  given.  '  The  verse,  ch.  xxvi.  i,  is  all  but  identical  with 
ch.  xxiii.  19,  only  a  little  abbreviated;  and  as  there  is  no  intimation 
in  it  that  the  Ziphites  came  to  Saul  again^  or,  a  second  time,  and  as 
the  incident  related  in  this  chapter  of  the  meeting  between  Saul  and 
David  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  that  recorded  in  ch.  xxiv.,  and 
is  of  a  nature  unlikely  to  have  occurred  more  than  once,  the  inquiry 
naturally  arises  whether  the  event  here  narrated  is  really  different 
from»that  in  ch.  xxiv.,  or  whether  it  is  the  same  event  somewhat 
differently  told.  The  points  of  resemblance  are:  (i)  The  identity 
above  named  of  ch.  xxvi.  i  with  ch.  xxiii.  19.  (2)  The  identity  of 
position  occupied  by  David,  ch.  xxiii.  19,  24,  and  ch.  xxvi.  i,  3.  (3) 
The  fact  of  Saul  and  David  being  on  the  same  hill  at  the  same  time, 
ch.  xxvi.  3,  compared  with  ch.  xxiii.  26.  (4)  The  special  note  of 
Saul's  locality  "  by  the  way,"  ch.  xxvi.  3,  and  xxiv.  3.  (5)  The 
number  of  Saul's  army  on  both  occasions,  3,000,  ch.  xxvi.  2  ;  xxiv.  2. 
(6)  The  speech  of  David's  men,  ch.  xxvi.  8,  and  xxiv.  4.  (7)  David's 


TWO  ACCOUNTS  OF  DAVID'S  MAGNANIMITY.     63 

refusal  to  set  forth  his  hand  against  the  Lord's  anointed,  ch.  xxvi. 
9,  ii,  and  xxiv.  6.  (8)  The  incident  of  David's  taking  Saul's  spear 
from  his  bedside,  ch.  xxvi.  12,  compared  with  his  cutting  off  the  skirt 
of  his  garment  (ch.  xxiv.  4),  incidents  which  might  possibly  be  identi- 
fied if  the  skirt  of  the  meil,  or  garment,  were  hanging  upon  the 
spear.  (9)  Saul's  sound  sleep,  ch.  xxiv.  3,  and  xxvi.  7.  (10)  David's 
expostulation  and  defence  of  himself,  ch.  xxvi.  19,  compared  with 
xxiv.  9;  xxvi.  20,  compared  with  xxiv.  14;  xxvi.  22-24,  compared 
with  xxiv.  10,  ii  ;  xxvi.  23,  24,  compared  with  xxiv.  15.  (n)  Saul's 
words,  xxvi.  17,  compared  with  xxiv.  16.  (12)  Saul's  avowal  of  his 
conviction  of  David's  future  greatness,  xxvi.  25,  compared  with  xxiv. 
20,  and  confession  of  his  own  misconduct,  xxvi.  21,  compared  with 
xxiv.  17,  1 8.  (13)  The  termination  of  the  interview  as  described 
xxvi.  25,  compared  with  xxiv.  22.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that  the 
two  narratives  may  be  brought  into  very  near  agreement  if  we  suppose 
David's  men,  in  xxiv.  3,  to  mean  not  the  whole  gang,  but  his  two 
companions,  Ahimelech  and  Abishai ;  if  we  suppose  David's  coming 
into  the  cave  to  be  not  accidental,  but  the  result  of  the  reconnaissance 
mentioned  in  xxvi.  5,  and  give  to  the  word  Q^^*,  in  ch.  xxiv.  3,  its 
proper  sense  of  "  lying  in  ambush,"  waiting  till  all  was  quite  still  in 
the  camp ;  and  if  we  suppose  that  Abner  and  the  people  were  en- 
camped just  outside  the  cave  within  which  Saul  lay,  as  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  they  were.  If  we  further  suppose  that  one  narrative 
relates  fully  some  incidents  on  which  the  other  is  silent,  there  will 
remain  no  discrepancy  of  any  importance.  So  that  on  the  whole  the 
nost  probable  conclusion  is  that  the  two  narratives  relate  to  one  and 
;he  same  event.  Compare  the  two  narratives  of  the  Creation,  Gen.  i. 
md  Gen.  ii.  4,  sqq.  ;  the  two  narratives  of  David's  war  against  the 
Syrians  under  Hadarezer,  2  Sam.  viii.,  and  x. ;  those  of  the  death 
)f  Ahaziah,  2  Kings  viii.  27,  sqq.,  and  2  Chron.  xxii.  9;  and  many 
nstances  in  the  Gospels  as  compared  one  with  another.' 

We  may  present,  as  fairly  and  fully,  what  can  be  urged  in  favour 
>f  the  view  that  two  wholly  distinct  incidents  are  narrated.  For  this 
ve  take  the  guidance  of  Canon  Spence.  '  The  circumstances  of  the 
light  raid  by  David  and  his  companions  into  the  camp  of  the  sleep- 
ng  Saul  are,  when  examined  closely,  so  entirely  different  from  the 
ircumstances  of  the  mid-day  siesta  of  Saul  in  the  Engedi  cavern, 
/here  David  and  his  band  were  dwelling,  that  it  is  really  impossible 
3  assume  that  they  are  versions  of  one  and  the  same  incident.  We 
onclude,  therefore,  with  some  certainty,  that  the  accounts  contained 
i  ch.  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  xxvi.,  refer  to  two  distinct  and  separate  events  ; 
nd  so  Keil,  Erdmann,  Lange,  and  Dean  Payne  Smith.  There  re- 


64        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

mains,  however,  a  still  graver  question  to  be  considered,  the  gravity 
and  difficulty  of  which  remains  the  same,  whether  we  assume,  as 
we  propose  to  do,  that  twice  in  the  course  of  the  outlaw  life  of  David 
the  king's  life  was  in  his  power,  or  that  only  once  David  stood  over 
the  sleeping  king,  sword  in  hand,  and  that  the  two  accounts  refer 
to  one  and  the  same  event.  For  what  purpose  did  the  compiler  of 
the  First  Book  of  Samuel  insert  in  his  narrative  this  twenty-sixth 
chapter — where  either  the  old  story  of  ch.  xxiii.  and  xxiv.  is  repeated 
with  certain  variations,  or  else  an  incident  of  a  similar  nature  to  one 
which  has  been  told  before  in  careful  detail  is  repeated  at  great 
length  ?  To  this  important  question  no  perfectly  satisfactory  reply 
can  be  given.  The  object  of  one  such  recital  in  an  account  of  the 
early  life  of  the  great  founder  of  Israelitic  greatness  is  clear,  but  we 
may  well  ask  why  was  a  second  narrative  of  an  incident  of  like  nature 
inserted  in  a  book  where  conciseness  is  ever  so  carefully  studied  ? 
All  we  can  suggest  is,  that  everything  which  conduced  to  the  glory  of 
the  favourite  hero  of  Israel  was  of  the  deepest  interest  to  the  people, 
and  the  surpassing  nobility  and  generosity  of  the  magnanimity  of 
David  to  his  deadly  foe  was  deemed  worthy  of  these  detailed  ac- 
counts, even  in  the  necessarily  brief  compilation  of  the  inspired 
writer  of  the  history  of  this  time.' 

The  question  is  a  deeply  interesting  and  important  one,  because  it 
involves  the  further  question,  whether  we  may  expect  to  find  in  the 
Scripture  histories  accounts  of  events  that  are  not  true  to  fact  in 
every  precise  detail.  May  we  think  that  the  writer  recorded  faith- 
fully the  narratives  as  he  found  them,  or  heard  them,  but  the  ac- 
counts were  only  in  a  general  sense  correct  ?  We  may  be  helped  by 
recalling  to  mind  the  general  agreement,  but  diversity  of  details,  in 
any  reports  sent  to  our  newspapers  of  events  that  happen.  We  do 
not  think  of  them  as  untruthful,  though  they  do  not  exactly  agree. 
A  historian  has  to  collate  the  different  reports  of  a  battle,  all  of  which 
may  be  truthful.  And  when  historical  events  or  incidents  in  lives  of 
great  men  were  only  remembered,  and  told  from  one  to  another, 
differences  in  detail  were  only  too  likely  to  spring  up.  In  the  case 
before  us  the  probabilities  seem  quite  in  favour  of  a  variation  in  the 
traditional  records  of  one  incident. 


THE  FIRST  ASSYRIAN  INVASIONS.  65 


The  First  Assyrian   Invasions. 

2  KINGS  xv.  19  :  '  And  Pul  the  king  of  Assyria  came  against  the  land  ;  and 
Menahem  gave  Pul  a  thousand  talents  of  silver,  that  his  hand  might  be  with  him 
to  confirm  the  kingdom  in  his  hand.' 

2  KINGS  xv.  29 :  'In  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of  Israel  came  Tiglath-pileser 
king  of  Assyria,  and  took  Ijon,  and  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh, 
and  Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  all  the  land  of  Naphtali,  and  carried  them 
captive  to  Assyria.' 

Question. — Do  the  Assyrian  records  furnish  any  corroboration, 
and  any  further  details,  of  these  invasions  ? 

Answer. — It  is  necessary  first  to  endeavour  to  trace  clearly  what 
is  stated  in  Scripture.  These  texts  record  two  distinct  invasions,  one 
occurring  in  the  reign  of  Menahem,  the  other  in  that  of  Pekah. 
Some  think  the  two  invasions  occurred  during  the  reign  of  one 
Assyrian  king,  who  is  called  in  the  one  place  Pul,  in  the  other 
Tiglath-pileser ;  but  it  is  always  safer  to  conclude  that  the  compiler 
of  Scripture  history  knew  what  he  was  writing  about,  and  was  not 
likely  to  give  two  names  to  the  same  man. 

Bible  readers  are  often  confused  by  the  statements  that  connect 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  with  Israel.  We  know  so  little  of  the 
relations  of  those  countries,  and  their  national  and  political  changes, 
that  to  most  of  us  the  one  seems  to  embrace  the  other.  Babylonia 
was  the  older  nation,  and  lay  southwards,  around  the  river  Tigris, 
and  near  the  Persian  Gulf.  Assyria  was  the  nation  occupying  the 
country  north  of  Babylonia,  and  around  the  Euphrates.  Both 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  were  aggressive  nations,  disposed  to  move 
westwards,  and  so  they  were  rivals ;  sometimes  Babylonia  was  a 
dependent  of  Assyria,  and  sometimes  Assyria  of  Babylonia.  When 
Samaria  was  taken,  and  the  kingdom  of  Israel  destroyed,  Assyria 
was  the  dominant  power.  When  Jerusalem  was  taken,  and  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  destroyed,  Babylonia  was  the  dominant  power. 

It  is  with  Assyrian  history  that  we  are  just  now  concerned.  It 
begins  with  the  patesis  or  viceroys  of  the  city  of  Assur,  of  whom  we 
only  know  the  names.  In  the  seventeenth  or  sixteenth  century 
before  the  Christian  era,  one  Bel  Kapkapi  gave  himself  the  title  of 
king.  For  two  or  three  centuries  our  chief  information  is  founded 
on  the  relations  between  this  monarchy  and  that  of  Babylonia, 
which  were  sometimes  peaceable,  and  sometimes  hostile.  For  six 
generations  the  descendants  of  Kapkapi  followed  one  another  on  the 
throne  ;  and  then  came  Tiglath-pileser  L,  who  may  be  regarded  as 
the  founder  of  the  first  Assyrian  Empire.  He  conquered  Babylonia 
in  B.C.  1130.  The  next  important  kings  are  Assurdan  IL ; 

5 


66        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Rimmon-nirari  II.  ;  and  Assur-natsir-pal  (B.C.  911-858).  Then  came 
Shalmaneser  II.,  who  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  compel  Israel 
(under  Jehu)  to  pay  tribute,  B.C.  884.  In  B.C.  854  he  attacked  the 
kingdom  of  Hamath,  and  a  confederacy  was  formed  against  him, 
which  included  Ahab  of  Israel.  Shalmaneser  also  succeeded  in 
reducing  Babylonia  to  vassalage. 

'•  Rawlinson  thinks  that  Judaea  was  regularly  tributary  to  Assyria 
from  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Amaziah,  B.C.  838,  and  that  it  is 
most  unlikely  Samaria,  which  lay  between  Judaea  and  Assyria,  could 
have  maintained  its  independence.  '  Under  the  Assyrian  system,  the 
monarchs  of  tributary  kingdoms,  on  ascending  the  throne,  applied 
for  "  confirmation  in  their  kingdoms  "  to  the  Lord  Paramount,  and 
only  became  established  on  receiving  it.  We  may  gather  from 
2  Kings  xv.  19,  20  that  Menahem  neglected  to  make  any  such  appli- 
cations to  his  liege  lord,  Pul — a  neglect  which  would  have  been 
regarded  as  a  plain  act  of  rebellion.  Pul  evidently  looked  on 
Menahem  as  a  rebel.  He  consequently  marched  an  army  into 
Palestine  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  his  revolt,  when  Menahem 
hastened  to  make  his  submission,  and  having  collected,  by  means  of 
a  poll-tax,  the  large  sum  of  a  thousand  talents  of  gold,  he  paid  it  over 
to  the  Assyrian  monarch,  who  consented,  thereupon,  to  "  confirm " 
him  as  king.' 

The  difficulty  in  identifying  Pul  lies  in  the  fact  that  this  name  does 
not  appear  among  the  Assyrian  monumental  kings,  and  we  have  to 
find  out  the  king  who  was  reigning  at  the  time  of  this  particular  ex- 
pedition. The  name  is  even  absent  from  the  copies  of  the  Assyrian 
Canon,  which  professes  to  give  the  entire  list  of  monarchs  from  about 
B.C.  910  to  B.C.  670.  There  seem  to  be  three  possible  theories,  (i) 
For  a  time  a  sort  of  second  Assyrian  monarchy  was  established,  and 
Pul  belonged  to  it.  (2)  Pul  is  but  another  name  for  Tiglath-pileser. 
(3)  Pul  is  the  predecessor  of  Tiglath-pileser,  and  appears  on  the 
monuments  as  Vul-lush. 

On  theory  i,  Speaker's  Commentary  says  :  'Assyria  proper  appears 
to  have  been  in  a  state  of  depression  for  some  forty  years  before 
the  accession  of  Tiglath-pileser.  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Berosus, 
who  mentioned  Pul,  called  him  a  Chaldcean,  and  not  an  Assyrian 
king.  These  circumstances  render  it  probable  that,  during  the  de- 
pression of  the  Ninevite  line,  a  second  monarchy  was  established 
upon  the  Euphrates,  which  claimed  to  be  the  true  Assyria,  and  was 
recognised  as  such  by  the  nations  of  Syria  and  Palestine ;  and  that 
Pul  was  one  of  its  kings.'  But  this  is  too  much  like  making  history 
in  order  to  remove  a  difficulty. 


THE  FIRST  ASSYRIAN  INVASIONS.  67 

On  theory  2,  Sayce  writes:  'After  Rimmon-nirari  III.  (B.C.  810- 
781),  who  compelled  Mariha,  of  Damascus,  to  pay  him  tribute,  as 
well  as  the  Phoenicians,  Israelites,  Edomites,  and  Philistines,  the 
vigour  of  the  dynasty  began  to  fail.  A  few  short  reigns  followed  that  of 
Rimmon-nirari,  during  which  the  first  Assyrian  empire  melted  away. 
A  formidable  power  arose  in  Armenia,  the  Assyrian  armies  were 
driven  to  the  frontiers  of  their  own  country,  and  disaffection  began 
to  prevail  in  Assyria  itself.  At  length, .on  June  15,  B.C.  763,  an 
eclipse  of  the  sun  took  place,  and  the  city  of  Assur  rose  in  revolt. 
The  revolt  lasted  three  years,  and  before  it  could  be  crushed  the  out- 
lying provinces  were  lost.  When  Assur-nirari,  the  last  of  his  line, 
ascended  the  throne,  in  B.C.  753,  the  empire  was  already  gone,  and 
the  Assyrian  cities  themselves  were  surging  with  discontent.  Ten 
years  later  the  final  blow  was  struck ;  the  army  declared  itself 
against  the  monarch,  and  he  and  his  dynasty  fell  together.  On  the 
3<Dth  of  lyyar,  of  the  year  B.C.  745,  a  military  adventurer,  Pul,  seized 
the  vacant  crown,  and  assumed  the  venerable  name  of  Tiglath- 
pileser.' 

The  Rev.  J.  C.  Ball,  M.A.,  in  Ellicott's  Commentary,  strongly 
supports  the  identification  of  Pul  with  Tiglath.  In  a  note  on 
i  Chron.  v.  26,  where  the  two  names  will  be  found  closely  associated, 
he  says  :  '  Tiglath-pileser  II.  actually  claims  to  have  received  tribute 
of  Menahem  (Menahimmu).  Pul  appears  to  have  been  the  original 
name  of  Tiglath-pileser,  which,  upon  his  accession  to  the  throne  of 
Assyria  (B.C.  745),  he  discarded  for  that  of  the  great  king  who  had 
ruled  the  country  four  centuries  before  his  time.  The  name  Pul 
(Pie-u-lu)  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Schrader  with  the  Porus  of 
Ptolemy's  Canon,  Por  being  the  Persian  pronunciation  of  Pul. 
Perhaps,  in  i  Chron.  v.  26,  the  chronicler  meant  to  indicate  the 
identity  of  Pul  and  Tiglath  :  "  The  spirit  of  Pul  and  ( =  that  is)  the 
spirit  of  Tiglath,"  and  he  carried  them  away.' 

Professor  Schrader 's  argument  may  be  summarized.  '  ( i )  Menahem, 
of  Israel,  and  Azariah,  of  Judah,  were  contemporaries,  according  to 
the  Bible  as  well  as  the  Inscriptions.  (2)  According  to  the  Bible, 
both  these  rulers  were  contemporary  with  an  Assyrian  king,  Pul ; 
according  to  the  Inscriptions,  with  Tiglath-pileser.  (3)  Berosus 
calls  Pul  a  Chaldaean ;  Tiglath-pileser  calls  himself  King  of  Chaldaea. 
(4)  Pul-Porus  became,  in  B.C.  731,  King  of  Babylon;  Tiglath-pileser 
in  B.C.  731  received  the  homage  of  the  Babylonian  king,  Merodach- 
Baladan,  as  he  also  reduced  other  Babylonian  princes  in  this  year, 
amongst  them  Chinzeros,  of  Amukkan.  (5)  Porus  appears  in  the 
Canon  of  Ptolemy  as  King  of  Babylon  ;  Tiglath-pileser  names  him- 

5—2 


68        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

self  "  King  of  Babylon."  (6)  Chinzeros  became  King  of  Babylon  in 
B.C.  731  according  to  the  Canon,  and,  in  fact,  along  with,  or  under,  a 
king  of  the  name  of  Poros  ;  the  hypothesis  that  the  vanquished  King 
of  Amukkan  of  the  same  name  was  entrusted  by  Tiglath-pileser  with 
the  vassal  kingship  of  Babylon  is  suggested  at  once  by  the  coincidence 
of  the  chronological  data.  (7)  In  the  year  B.C.  727-726,  a  change  of 
government  took  place  in  Assyria,  in  consequence  of  the  death  of 
Tiglath-pileser,  and  in  Babylonia  in  consequence  of  the  death  of 
Porus.  (8)  No  king  appears  in  the  Assyrian  lists  by  a  name  like  Pul, 
which  is  anomalous  as  a  royal  designation  ;  we  can  only  identify  Pul 
with  some  other  name  in  the  lists,  and,  on  historical  grounds,  with 
Tiglath-pileser  only.  (9)  Pul  and  Porus  are  forms  of  the  same  name. 
Compare  Babiru  for  Babilu,  in  Persian  inscriptions.  (10)  From  all 
this,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  Pul  and  Porus,  Pul  and  Tiglath- 
Pileser,  are  one  and  the  same  person.' 

On  theory  3,  Rawlinson  writes  in  Smith's  (  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,' 
but  we  have  been  unable  to  find  any  recent  confirmations  of  it :  '  The 
Assyrian  monuments  have  a  king,  whose  name  is  read,  very  doubt- 
fully, as  Vul-lush  or  Iva-lush,  at  about  the  period  when  Pul  must 
have  reigned.  This  monarch  is  the  grandson  of  Shalmaneser  (the 
Black  Obelisk  king,  who  warred  with  Benhadad  and  Hazael,  and 
took  tribute  from  Jehu),  while  he  is  certainly  anterior  to  the  whole 
line  of  monarchs  forming  the  lower  dynasty — Tiglath-pileser,  Shal- 
maneser, Sargon,  etc.  His  probable  date,  therefore,  is  B.C.  800-750, 
while  Pul  ruled  over  Assyria  in  B.C.  770.  The  Hebrew  name  Pul  is 
undoubtedly  curtailed;  for  no  Assyrian  name  consists  of  a  single 
element.  If  we  take  the  "  Phalos,"  or  "  Phaloch  "  of  the  Septuagint 
as  probably  nearer  to  the  original  type,  we  have  a  form  not  very 
different  from  Vul-lush  or  Iva-lush.  If,  on  these  grounds,  the  identi- 
fication of  the  Scriptural  Pul  with  the  monumental  Vul-lush  be 
regarded  as  established,  we  may  give  some  further  particulars  of  him 
which  possess  considerable  interest.  Vul-lush  reigned  at  Calah 
(Nimrud)  from  about  B.C.  800  to  750.  He  states  that  he  made  an 
expedition  into  Syria,  wherein  he  took  Damascus ;  and  that  he 
received  tribute  from  the  Medes,  Armenians,  Phoenicians,  Samaritans, 
Damascenes,  Philistines,  and  Edomites.  He  also  tells  us  that  he 
invaded  Babylonia  and  received  the  submission  of  the  Chaldaeans. 
He  was  probably  the  last  Assyrian  monarch  of  his  race.  The  list  of 
Assyrian  monumental  kings,  which  is  traceable  without  a  break,  and 
in  a  direct  line  to  him  from  his  seventh  ancestor,  here  comes  to  a 
stand;  no  son  of  Vul-lush  is  found  ;  and  Tiglath-pileser,  who  seems 
to  have  been  Vul-lush 's  successor,  is  evidently  a  usurper,  since  he 


JOSHUAS  SUDDEN  MARCH  TO  EBAL.  69 

makes  no  mention  of  his  father  or  ancestors.  The  circumstances  of 
Vul-lustts  death,  and  of  the  revolution  which  established  the  lower 
Assyrian  dynasty,  are  almost  wholly  unknown,  no  account  of  them 
having  come  down  to  us  upon  any  good  authority.  Not  much  value 
can  be  attached  to  the  statement  in  Agathias  that  the  last  king  of  the 
upper  dynasty  was  succeeded  by  his  own  gardener.' 

Of  these  theories,  the  second  appears  to  be  best  supported. 


Joshua's  Sudden  March  to  Ebal. 

JOSHUA  viii.  35  :  '  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded,  which 
Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  with  the  women,  and  the 
little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that  were  conversant  among  them.' 

Difficulty. — This  paragraph,  verses  30-35,  is  inserted  in  the  midst 
of  the  narrative  of  the  conquest.  Can  it  be  in  its  proper  place  ?  Can 
we  think  of  the  whole  congregation  temporarily  removed  from  Gilgal, 
their  camp,  while  the  country  was  still  at  war  ? 

Explanation.— This  difficulty  has  been  met  in  several  ways. 
Josephus  places  the  transaction  later  on.  The  LXX.  puts  this  para- 
graph after  ch.  ix.  2.  Lange  and  Speakers  Commentary  think  it  should 
come  in  after  ch.  xi.  Keil  suggests  that  another  Gilgal  is  referred  to, 
not  that  by  Jericho.  There  was  a  Gilgal  near  Gerizim,  but  no  hint 
is  given  us  of  the  removal  of  the  camp  to  that  spot.  Other  writers 
think  the  conquest  of  Ai  secured  the  road  to  Shechem,  and  prefer 
to  recognise  an  earnest  effort  made  at  this  time  to  fulfil  the  require- 
ment of  Moses. 

It  must  be  admitted  that,  however  strange  it  may  seem  to  our 
notions,  the  removal  of  such  a  host  in  those  days  would  not  be  re- 
markable. Great  caravans  break  up  camp  and  march  long  distances 
in  the  East,  and  the  Israelites  were  still  keeping  their  tent-life  and 
habits.  The  chief  difficulty  in  such  a  march  would  be  the  peril  of 
attack  from  active  foes.  But  the  recent  conquest  of  Ai  would  add  to 
the  terror  of  the  nations  round,  and  in  acting  with  promptitude 
Joshua  found  safety.  Shechem  seems  to  have  been  chosen  as  the 
place  of  meeting,  because  it  was  the  centre  of  the  land ;  and  a  solemn 
ceremony  there  was  like  taking  possession  of  the  whole  land  for 
Jehovah.  '  Accordingly,  all  the  nation,  including  the  women  and 
children,  and  even  the  multitude  of  other  races  which  had  come  up 
with  them  from  Egypt,  were  led  on  a  stupendous  grimage,  from 
the  banks  of  the  Jordan  at  Gilgal,  to  the  valley  between  Mounts 
Ebal  and  Gerizim,  in  the  midland  hills.' 

In  a  separate  note,  the  Speaker's  Commentary  argues  the  point  that 


70        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  paragraph  is  out  of  its  place.  *  It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  con- 
viction that  these  verses  are  here  out  of  their  proper  and  original 
place.  The  connection  between  viii.  29,  and  ix.  i,  is  natural  and 
obvious  ;  and  in  ix.  3,  the  fraud  of  the  Gibeonites  is  represented  as 
growing  out  of  the  alarm  caused  by  the  fall  of  Jericho  and  Ai.  It 
is,  too,  on  the  face  of  it,  extremely  unlikely  that  a  solemnity  of  this 
nature  in  the  very  centre  of  the  country  should  be  undertaken  by 
Joshua  whilst  the  whole  surrounding  district  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemy,  or  that,  if  undertaken,  it  would  have  been  carried  out  un- 
molested. For  it  appears  that  (verse  35)  "all  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  with  the  women,  and  the  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that 
were  conversant  among  them,"  were  present  at  it.  The  distance  from 
Gilgal  in  the  Jordan  Valley  to  Mount  Ebal  is  fully  thirty  miles  ;  and 
so  vast  a  host,  with  its  non-effective  followers,  could  certainly  not 
have  accomplished  a  march  like  this  through  a  difficult  country  and 
a  hostile  population  in  less  than  three  days.  Moreover,  in  ix.  6 ; 
x.  6,  15,  43,  the  Israelites  are  spoken  of  as  still  encamping  at  Gilgal. 
If,  then,  the  solemnity  described  in  these  verses  was  really  transacted 
immediately  after  the  fall  of  Ai,  the  host,  with  its  "  women,  little 
ones,"  etc.,  must  have  made  the  tedious  and  dangerous  march  to 
Shechem  and  back  again,  beside  having  to  spend  a  day  or  two  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  mountains  for  the  preparation  and  performance 
of  the  solemnity.  Nothing  is  said  of  special  Divine  interference ; 
and  in  the  absence  of  miraculous  help,  Joshua  could  hardly  have 
accomplished  this  undertaking  at  the  time  suggested  by  the  present 
position  of  verses  30-35  in  the  narrative.' 

The  Law  of  the  Goel. 

NUMBERS  xxxv.  12  :  '  And  they  shall  be  unto  you  cities  for  refuge  from  the 
avenger ;  that  the  manslayer  die  not,  until  he  stand  before  the  congregation  in 
judgment.'' 

Question. — Did  Moses  adopt  an  existing  custom  in  regulating  for 
escape  from  the  family  avenger  ?  If  so,  what  modifications  of  the 
custom  did  he  make  ? 

Answer. — Gesenius  gives  the  derivation  of  the  word  'Goer 
as  from  the  verb  Gauat,  to  redeem,  or  buy  back.  The  participle 
*  Goel '  means  '  redeemer  :'  when  added  to  the  word  daum  (blood),  the 
verb  means  *  to  avenge  bloodshed,  to  require  the  penalty  of  blood- 
shed from  anyone.'  In  the  participle  'Goel  Haddaum'  it  means 
'  avenger  of  blood.'  Since  the  right  of  redemption,  and  the  office  of 
avenging  bloodshed,  belonged  to  the  nearest  kinsman,  '  Goel '  came  to 
denote  'near  of  kin,'  'near  relative.' 


THE  LAW  OF  THE  GO  EL.  71 

All  the  evidence  favours  the  idea,  that  Moses  modified  and  adapted 
an  existing  sentiment  and  custom.  Similar  ideas  and  arrangements 
prevail  in  uncivilized  nations  still.  Dr.  Turner,  the  South  Sea 
missionary,  tells  us  that  in  Samoa,  the  manslayer,  or  the  deliberate 
murderer,  fearing  the  family  avenger,  flies  to  the  house  of  the  chief 
of  the  village,  or  to  the  house  of  the  chief  of  another  village  to  which 
he  is  related  by  the  father's  or  the  mother's  side.  In  nine  cases  out 
of  ten  he  is  perfectly  safe,  if  he  only  remains  there. 

'  In  an  unsettled  state  of  society  the  execution  of  justice  was 
necessarily  left  in  private  hands.  The  lowest  stage  of  national  de- 
velopment is  where  everyone  assumes  the  right  of  avenging  alleged 
misdeeds  at  his  discretion  ;  and  it  was,  therefore,  already  an  upward 
step  when  prevailing  custom  restricted  this  right  to  certain  persons, 
who,  although  wielding  no  public  authority,  were  yet  invested,  ipso 
facto,  for  the  time  being,  with  a  public  character.  It  was  in  such  a 
spirit  that  the  unwritten  code  of  the  East  conceded  to  the  nearest 
kinsman  of  a  murdered  man  the  right  of  avenging  the  blood  that 
had  been  shed.  He  was  permitted  to  kill  the  murderer,  without 
notice,  openly  or  secretly,  wheresoever  he  might  find  him.  Such 
rude  justice  necessarily  involved  grave  evils.  It  gave  no  opportunity 
to  the  person  charged  with  crime  of  establishing  his  innocence ;  it 
recognised  no  distinction  between  murder,  manslaughter,  and  acci- 
dental homicide ;  it  perpetuated  family  blood-feuds,  the  avenger  of 
blood  being  liable  to  be  treated  in  his  turn  as  a  murderer  by  the 
kinsman  of  the  man  whom  he  had  slain.  These  grievances  could 
not  be  removed  as  long  as  there  was  no  central  government  strong 
enough  to  vindicate  the  law  ;  but  they  might  be  mitigated ;  and  to 
do  this  was  the  object  of  Moses  in  the  arrangement  he  made  for 
"  cities  of  refuge."  Among  the  Arab  tribes,  who  are  under  the  con- 
trol of  no  central  authority,  the  practice  of  blood-revenge  subsists  in 
full  force  to  the  present  day.  The  law  of  the  Koran  limits  the  right 
of  demanding  satisfaction  to  cases  in  which  a  man  has  been  un- 
justly smitten,  and  forbids  the  kinsman  of  the  deceased  to  avenge 
his  blood  on  any  other  than  the  actual  murderer.  But  these  restric- 
tions are  generally  disregarded  in  practice  by  the  Arabs.'  (Speaker's 
Commentary.} 

Dr.  Thomson,  in  'Land  and  Book,'  tells  us,  concerning  some 
tribes  he  visited,  l  as  in  the  Jewish  community  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
so  here,  the  custom  of  blood-revenge  is  too  deeply  rooted  to  be 
under  the  control  of  the  feudal  lords  of  the  land ;  indeed,  they 
themselves  and  their  families  are  bound  by  it  in  its  sternest  demands. 
It  is  plain  that  Moses,  clothed  with  all  the  influence  and  power  of  an 


72        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

inspired  law-giver,  could  not  eradicate  this  dreadful  custom,  and  was 
merely  commissioned  to  mitigate  its  horrors  by  establishing  cities  of 
refuge  under  certain  humane  regulations.  It  is  one  of  the  cruel 
features  of  the  lex  talionis,  that  if  the  real  murderer  cannot  be 
reached,  the  avengers  of  blood  have  a  right  to  kill  any  other  member 
of  the  family,  then  any  relation,  no  matter  how  remote,  and,  finally, 
any  member  of  the  blood  confederation.' 

C.J.  Elliot  says  :  *  The  avenger  (Goel)  was  the  near  kinsman  whose 
office  it  was  to  redeem  the  person  or  inheritance  of  his  kinsman,  if 
that  kinsman  was  reduced  by  poverty  to  sell  himself  into  slavery,  or 
to  sell  his  inheritance ;  and  also  to  avenge  his  blood  in  the  event 
of  his  being  slain.  The  Mosaic  law  of  the  goel  served  to  keep  in 
check  the  excited  passions  of  the  near  relations  of  the  man  who  had 
been  slain,  and  to  secure  for  him  a  fair  and  impartial  trial.' 

Dr.  Cox,  in  '  Biblical  Antiquities,'  gives  a  good  account  of  early 
notions  of  justice.  '  In  the  earliest  times,  it  was  left  altogether  to 
the  nearest  relation  of  the  person  that  had  been  killed  to  execute 
punishment  upon  the  murderer.  (See  the  fear  of  Cain  lest  someone, 
finding  him,  should  kill  him.)  In  the  common  sentiment  of  society 
this  was  not  only  his  right,  but  his  duty  also ;  so  that  disgrace  and 
reproach  fell  upon  him  if  he  failed  to  perform  it.  Hence  it  became, 
with  such  an  one,  a  great  point  of  honour  not  to  leave  the  blood  of 
his  kinsman  unavenged,  and  this,  added  to  the  keen  feeling  of  anger 
which  naturally  raged  in  his  bosom,  urged  him  to  make  the  greatest 
exertions  to  overtake  and  destroy  the  person  by  whose  hand  it  had 
been  shed.  This  plan  of  punishment  was  the  most  natural  one  in 
that  simple  state  of  society  which  was  first  common.  Hence  it  pre- 
vailed among  all  people  ;  and  because  the  manners  of  many  nations 
in  the  East  have  been  handed  down  with  very  little  alteration  from 
the  most  ancient  days,  it  still  prevails  to  a  considerable  extent  in  that 
part  of  the  world.  It  is  in  use  also  among  the  American  Indians, 
and  in  various  countries  of  Africa.  It  is  easy  to  see,  however,  that 
such  a  plan  must  be  attended  with  most  serious  evil.  It  is  adapted 
to  cherish  feelings  of  bitterness  and  revenge,  and  to  make  them 
seem  honourable ;  it  is  not  likely  to  distinguish  between  wilful  murder 
and  such  as  happens  without  design  ;  and  more  than  this,  it  tends  to 
produce  lasting  feuds  between  families,  one  revenge  still  calling  for 
another,  and  blood  continually  demanding  new  blood,  so  that  in  the 
end,  instead  of  one  life,  many  are  cruelly  destroyed,  in  consequence 
of  a  single  murder.  Thus  it  is,  remarkably,  among  the  Arabs  ; 
families,  and  sometimes  whole  tribes,  are  set  against  each  other  in 
deadly  hatred  and  war,  by  the  retaliation  which  a  crime  of  this  sort 


THE  LA  W  OF  THE  GOEL,  73 

produces  ;  and  the  enmity  is  handed  down  from  fathers  to  sons  as  a 
sacred  inheritance,  until  either  one  party  is  completely  destroyed,  or 
satisfaction  made,  such  as  the  side  to  whom  the  injury  was  first  done 
may  agree  to  accept.  The  true  interest  of  society,  therefore,  requires 
that  a  different  plan  of  punishment  should  be  secured ;  that  its  execu- 
tion should  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  nearest  relation,  and 
put  into  those  of  the  civil  magistrate.' 

Dr.  Geikie  says  :  '  Blood-revenge  has  been  a  passion  among  all 
Semitic  people  from  the  earliest  ages.  It  may  have  arisen,  in  some 
degree,  as  lynch  law  has  sprung  up  in  the  frontier  States  of  America, 
from  the  imperfect  development  of  society,  and  the  fancied  necessity 
of  taking  private  means  to  secure  justice ;  but  whatever  its  source, 
it  was  early  recognised  as  not  only  a  right  but  a  duty.  Among  the 
Bedouins,  it  has,  for  ages,  been  made  not  only  a  personal  matter,  but 
the  affair  of  the  whole  tribe  of  the  murdered  man,  on  each  member 
of  which  lies  the  responsibility  of  obtaining  vengeance.  .  .  .  The 
law  was,  indeed,  written,  "  He  that  killeth  any  man  shall  surely  be 
put  to  death  ;"  but  the  avenger  of  blood  was  left  to  be  the  executioner, 
due  reprisals  being  regarded  as  so  completely  a  fulfilment  of  the 
Divine  will  that  God  Himself  is  spoken  of  as  the  blood-avenger  of 
His  people.  No  money-payment  could  be  taken  for  murder,  or  ever 
for  homicide  :  to  compound  such  a  felony  made  the  land  unclean 
before  God.  Innocent  blood,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Hebrews,  as  of 
the  Arabs  now,  cries  from  the  ground  to  God  for  revenge.  Even  the 
altar,  inviolable  for  any  other  crime,  could  give  the  murderer  no  pro- 
tection. It  was  manifestly  wrong,  however,  to  put  deliberate  and 
accidental  homicide  on  the  same  footing,  and  hence  means  of  escape 
were  provided  for  those  guilty  of  only  the  unintentional  offence.' 

Ewald,  in  his  *  Antiquities  of  Israel,'  treats  this  '  law  of  the  Goe'l ' 
very  philosophically.  His  introductory  paragraph  may  be  given  as 
dealing  with  that  portion  of  the  subject  which  is  now  under  con- 
sideration. '  That  the  life,  or,  to  express  the  idea  in  another  more 
Hebrew  word,  the  "  soul "  of  a  man,  possesses  of  itself  an  inviolable 
sanctity,  is  one  of  the  first  principles  which  was  firmly  established 
among  the  nobler  races  from  the  very  earliest  times,  and  in  which  all 
those  presentiments  of  something  infinite  being  implanted  in  man 
sought  to  find  the  clearest  expression  possible.  All  more  particular 
historical  reminiscence  begins  with  the  fact  of  the  sanctity  of  human 
life  being  already  terribly  violated  in  every  variety  of  way ;  and  the 
sinful  impulses  had  also  become  sufficiently  pernicious  and  excitable 
in  this  direction  before  the  human  race  set  about  repressing  them 
energetically.  Then,  in  order  to  uphold  the  true  principle,  there 


74        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

arose  among  the  nobler  and  more  spirited  races  what  is  known  as  the 
vengeance  of  blood.  This  was  already  an  established  custom  in  the 
primitive  days  when  the  household  was  still  everything,  and  when  a 
kingdom  embracing  all  individuals  was  either  extremely  weak,  or 
altogether  wanting,  and  at  that  time  it  alone  furnished  this  most  in- 
indispensable  reciprocal  protection  for  life.  The  avenger  of  blood  is 
the  redeemer  ;  he  is  the  next  heir  ;  he  inherits  not  merely  the  goods, 
but  the  corresponding  debts  and  duties  of  the  dying  man.  If,  then, 
it  is  one  of  the  first  duties  of  a  living  man  not  to  endure  any  wrong 
that  has  been  put  upon  him,  and  to  avenge  all  insult,  if,  moreover, 
having  been  wrongfully  murdered,  he  is  himself  unable  to  discharge 
this  duty,  then  the  nearest  of  kin,  or  his  representative,  inherits,  along 
with  his  other  new  duties,  the  vengeance  of  blood  as  the  most  sacred 
of  them  all,  and  the  full  burden  of  infamy  rests  on  him  should  he 
not  discharge  this  most  burning  obligation.  Accordingly,  it  was  a 
further  and  natural  consequence  that  the  whole  family  of  the  murdered 
man  took  this  duty  upon  themselves,  and  however  long,  or  with  what- 
ever craft,  the  murderer  might  seek  to  baffle  the  avenger,  this  only 
called  for  more  craft  and  persistence  on  the  part  of  the  latter.  The 
investigation,  whether  a  murder  were  intentional  or  not,  undoubtedly 
led  very  early  to  simple  expiation  for  what  was  done  without  purpose ; 
but  among  many  nations,  even  in  the  case  of  intentional  murder,  it 
became  a  custom  to  compound  with  blood-money  for  the  life  which 
was  forfeited  to  this  right  of  retaliation.' 


Dissatisfaction  with  the  Theocracy. 

I  SAMUEL  viii.  7  :  'And  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  Hearken  unto  the  voice  of 
the  people  in  all  that  they  say  unto  thee  :  for  they  have  not  rejected  thee,  but  they 
have  rejected  Me,  that  I  should  not  reign  over  them.' 

Question. — Is  not  God  here  represented  as  taking  an  altogether 
more  serious  view  of  the  request  of  the  people  than  they  intended  ? 

Answer. — It  is  important  to  notice  that,  in  using  the  expression, 
'They  have  rejected  Me,'  God  is  not  sending  a  message  to  the  people, 
but  graciously  relieving  and  comforting  His  servant,  who  felt  that 
the  demand  for  a  king  was  a  slight  put  upon  himself — an  intimation 
that  his  judging  or  ruling  of  the  people  was  not  altogether  satisfactory. 
The  expression  bears  the  intensity  which  is  suitable  to  a  kind  and 
friendly  expostulation. 

Canon  Spence  well  expresses  this  point.  'The  words  spoken  to 
Samuel,  probably  in  a  vision,  by  the  Most  High,  are  very  touching 
and  very  sad— very  touching  in  their  extreme  tenderness  to  the  noble 


DISSATISFACTION  WITH  THE  THEOCRACY.      75 

)ld  man.  "  Take  courage,"  they  seem  to  say,  "  My  old  true  servant, 
md  be  not  dismayed  at  this  apparently  bitter  proof  of  the  ingratitude 
>f  the  people  you  loved  so  well.  This  deliberate  complaint  on  the 
)art  of  Israel  is  directed  not  against  you,  the  judge,  but  against  Me, 
he  invisible  King.  They  have  ever  been  the  same  —  incapable  of 
)ecoming  My  true  subjects,  and  of  winning  on  earth  the  lofty  position 
[  would  have  given  them  ;  you  must  give  them  now  their  heart's 
lesire.  It  has  all  been  foreseen  and  provided  for  ;  only  make  them 
inderstand  what  they  are  asking.  Then  give  them  their  earthly 


The  people  certainly  had  not  in  their  minds  any  idea  of  rejecting 
[ehovah  as  their  God.  But  God  knew  that  the  actual  issue  of 
gaining  their  desire  would  be  His  rejection  by  the  nation.  With  those 
)onds  removed,  which  made  Israel  a  separate  and  distinct  people,  it 
vas  only  too  certain  that  they  would  first  try  to  blend  the  worship  of 
dol-gods  with  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  then  speedily  come  to 
Dut  the  worship  of  idol-gods  in  the  place  of  Jehovah.  The  real 
lature  of  a  seemingly  simple  and  innocent  request  can  often  be  seen 
hrough  its  remote  consequences,  and  it  is  the  skill  of  the  historian 
o  estimate  the  movements  of  an  age  in  the  light  of  its  after-issues  : 
)ut  God  alone  can  see  beforehand,  and  estimate  present  conduct  in 
he  light  of  the  results  that  flow  from  it.  What  God  told  Samuel 
vas  a  view  of  present  conduct  based  upon  Divine  foreknowledge. 

Jehovah  was  pleased  to  unite  in  Himself  two  relationships,  which, 
n  common  nations,  were  kept  distinct.  He  was  Israel's  God,  and 
-Ie  was  Israel's  King.  The  union  of  these  two  relationships  is 
:xpressed  in  the  term  'Theocracy.'  So  far  as  the  people  understood 
heir  own  request,  what  they  wanted  was  that  Jehovah  should  continue 
o  be  their  God,  but  that  the  actual  government  of  the  nation  should 
>e  put  into  the  hands  of  some  fellow-man,  so  that  they  might  have 
vith  them  a  chief  magistrate,  a  centre  of  court-life,  and  a  captain  of 
heir  armies.  Israel  had  been  called  and  separated,  as  a  nation,  in 
»rder  to  preserve  for  the  world  the  two  primary  truths  of  the  unity 
nd  spirituality  of  God.  But  these  could  only  be  preserved  by  faith 
—faith  of  unseen  things.  As  a  constant  educator  of  faith,  God 
rranged  to  be  their  unseen,  but  ever-present,  earthly  King  ;  always 
ccessible,  directly  concerned  in  every  national  movement,  making 
lis  presence  felt  by  national  successes,  but  never  seen  ;  His  presence 
.pprehended  only  by  faith. 

It  was  this  call  for  faith  in  the  unseen  which  proved  too  great  a 
train  upon  the  people.  It  was  this  strain  they  asked  to  have 
elieved.  They  did  not  see  that  they  were  losing  their  safeguard, 


76       HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

and  virtually  refusing  the  mission  for  the  world  which  had  been 
entrusted  to  them. 

It  must  be  admitted  that,  from  the  purely  human  point  of  view, 
the  history  of  the  period  of  Judges  will  account  for  '  dissatisfaction 
with  the  Theocracy.'  It  certainly  had  not  worked  well  during  those 
ages  of  struggle.  But  the  question  to  solve  is  this  :  Was  that  failure 
due  to  the  Theocratic  system,  or  to  the  inability  of  the  people  to 
work  the  Theocratic  system?  These  elders  who  came  to  Samuel 
should  have  been  dissatisfied  with  themselves,  and  not  with  the 
Theocracy.  The  tribes  had  not  kept  together.  The  religious 
ceremonials  had  not  been  rightly  observed.  Jehovah's  actual 
guidance  of  national  affairs  had  not  been  sought.  Those  Israelites 
were  like  bad  workmen,  who  complained  of  their  tools  >  when  they 
should  complain  of  themselves. 

Kitto  suggests,  as  one  reason  for  the  people  desiring  an  earthly 
king,  that  their  having  no  king  was  made  a  subject  of  reproach  by 
their  heathen  neighbours.  *  The  Eastern  mind  is  so  essentially  and 
pervadingly  regal,  that  to  be  without  a  sovereign  is  scarcely  an 
intelligible  state  of  things  to  an  Oriental;  and  they  must  have  had 
occasion  to  feel  that  the  absence  of  a  king  gave  them  an  appearance 
of  inferiority  in  the  eyes  of  their  neighbours,  incapable  of  under- 
standing or  appreciating  the  special  and  glorious  privileges  of  their 
position.  The  want  of  a  royal  head  must  often  have  been  cast  in 
their  teeth  by  their  neighbours  as  a  kind  of  stigma  ;  and  they  would 
in  course  of  time  come  to  regard  it  as  such  themselves,  and  long  to 
be  in  this  point  on  a  level  with  other  nations.  Even  good  men,  able 
to  appreciate  the  advantages  of  existing  institutions,  would  eventually 
become  weary  of  a  peculiarity  which  the  nations  would  obtusely 
persist  in  regarding  as  discreditable. 

Ewald  says :  '  To  the  Theocracy  was  now  added  the  Monarchy, 
not  to  subvert  or  gradually  supersede  it,  but  to  fulfil  the  wants  of  the 
age  by  its  side.  Hence,  as  the  Monarchy  was  not  intended  to  call 
in  question  the  foundation  of  the  Theocracy,  but  rather  to  stand  and 
work  on  the  same  basis  with  it,  it  was  bound  to  leave  untouched  the 
necessary  living  instruments  through  which  the  Theocracy  then  acted, 
especially  the  Prophets.  There  was  consequently  formed  what  we 
may  call  a  mixed  constitution  and  sovereignty;  and  the  pure 
Theocracy  became  a  Basileo-Theocracy.'  '  In  so  far  as  the  previous 
Theocracy  excluded  temporal  royalty,  an  all  but  indispensable 
element,  it  inevitably  acquired  in  course  of  time  a  certain  stiffness 
and  one-sidedness,  and  became  less  competent  to  fulfil  its  own 
mission  ;  as  the  preceding  history  has  shown.  Thus  the  entrance  of 


THE  SCRIPTURE  FIGURE  OF  NIMROD.  77 

monarchy  soon  surprises  us  by  the  great  increase  of  variety,  move- 
ment, and  vigour  which  it  produces ;  and  while  the  two  strongest 
powers  of  the  state,  by  their  combination,  alternately  hostile  and 
friendly,  kindle  a  new  life  in  the  higher  departments,  such  a  fresh 
energy  soon  so  far  penetrates  the  lower  also,  that  Israel  in  a  short 
time  makes  up  for  the  delays  of  centuries.'  '  But  now  in  this  com- 
munity, face  to  face  with  the  human  king  stands  the  Theocracy ;  a 
something  still  higher,  and  inviolable;  with  all  its  long-standing 
sacred  laws  and  arrangements,  and  still  continuously  revealing  itself 
through  prophets  and  their  words,  valid  as  a  Divine  command.'  If 
the  man  appointed  'desired  to  be  really  king,  it  could  only  be 
through  his  entering  more  fully  than  anyone  else  into  the  mind  and 
spirit  of  Jahveh  (Jehovah),  and  becoming  through  Him  the  proper 
human  ruler  in  the  midst  of  the  Theocracy.' 

It  is  evidently  necessary  to  state  with  precision  and  care  the  sense 
in  which  the  request  for  an  earthly  king  expressed  dissatisfaction  with 
the  Theocracy.  The  dissatisfaction  only  concerned  its  practical 
working  in  times  of  grave  difficulty. 

The  Scripture  Figure  of  Nimrod. 

GENESIS  x.  8-10  :  '  And  Gush  begat  Nimrod  ;  he  began  to  be  a  mighty  one  in 
:he  earth.  He  was  a  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord  ;  wherefore  it  is  said,  Even 
is  Nimrod  the  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord.  And  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom 
was  Babel,  and  Ereeh,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of  Shinar.' 

Difficulty. — //  does  not  seem  worth  while  to  keep  the  record  of  a 
'na??s  being  a  ''great  hunter?  Can  this  be  a  figure  for  the  man  who 
^irst  showed  the  ambition  to  become  a  great  world-conqueror  ? 

Explanation. — The  name  Nimrod  is  said  to  mean  *a  rebel.' 
\mong  the  Assyrian  monuments  a  figure  has  been  discovered  which 
s  said  to  represent  Nimrod  ;  he  is  grasping  a  lion  in  his  left  hand, 
.vhile  his  right  holds  probably  a  missile  weapon.  We  may  take  this 
is  symbolical.  Allowing  for  the  uncertainty  that  attaches  to  all 
egendary  accounts  of  the  beginnings  of  nations  and  races,  we  may 
;till  regard  Nimrod  as  an  historical  figure.  He  was  the  first  great  hero 
)n  earth,  as  the  world  understands  the  term  'hero.'  He  was  success- 
ul  in  war,  and  distinguished  in  the  chase,  so  that  his  skill  and 
ntrepidity  as  a  huntsman  passed  into  a  proverb.  But  what  we  are 
eft  to  assume  from  the  record  is,  that  Nimrod  was  the  leader  of 
iggressive  movements  of  nations  against  nations ;  the  first  great 
nvader  who  had  the  hunger  for  territory,  and  universal  rule,  which 
las  made  desolating  world-conquerors  in  almost  every  age  of  human 
listory.  He  moved  northward  into  the  fertile  land  of  Shinar,  and 


78        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

to  the  town  of  Babylon,  making  that  a  centre  from  which  he  ruled 
other  cities  around.  He  also  went  into  the  country  called  Asshur, 
and  founded  Nineveh  (verse  u). 

The  date  of  Nimrod  can  only  be  conjectured.  Kalisch  places  him 
2450  B.C.  He  is  called  by  the  LXX.,  'a  hunting  giant;'  by  the 
Arabic  Version,  '  a  terrible  tyrant ;'  and  by  the  Syriac  Version,  '  a 
warlike  giant.'  The  Scripture  notice  does  not  imply  any  violence  or 
lawlessness  in  Nimrod's  career,  more  than  would  be  associated  with 
any  world-conqueror  or  founder  of  kingdoms.  Dean  Payne  Smith 
takes  a  kindly  view  of  his  life-work.  '  Cush  was  probably  not  im- 
mediate father,  but  ancestor  of  Nimrod.  In  his  days  population  had 
become  numerous,  and  whereas  each  tribe  and  family  had  hitherto 
lived  in  independence,  subject  only  to  the  authority  of  the  natural 
head,  he  was  able,  by  his  personal  vigour,  to  reduce  several  tribes  to 
obedience,  to  prevail  upon  them  to  build  and  inhabit  cities,  and  to 
consolidate  them  into  one  body  politic.' 

Bochart  says  that,  by  being  a  famous  hunter,  he  gathered  to  himself 
all  the  enterprising  young  men  of  his  generation,  attached  them  to 
his  person,  and  so  became  a  kind  of  king  among  them,  training  his 
followers  first  in  the  chase,  and  then  leading  them  to  war. 

Kitto  remarks  that  '  we  really  know  nothing  more  of  Nimrod  than 
that  he  was  a  strong,  forceful,  and  unscrupulous  character,  a  leader 
of  men  in  his  generation,  and  the  first  founder  of  the  Assyrio-Baby- 
lonian  Empire,  which,  however  small  in  its  beginning,  was  destined, 
ages  after,  to  overshadow  the  nations.'  The  only  actual  facts  that 
are  at  our  command  concerning  Nimrod  are  (i)  that  he  was  a 
Cushite ;  (2)  that  he  established  an  empire  in  Shinar  (the  classical 
Babylonia),  the  chief  towns  being  Babel,  Erech,  Accad,  and  Calneh  ; 
(3)  that  he  extended  this  kingdom  northwards  along  the  course  of 
the  Tigris  over  Assyria,  where  he  founded  a  second  group  of  capitals 
—Nineveh,  Rehoboth,  Calah,  and  Resen. 

Smith's  Dictionary  gives  a  good  summary  of  what  may  reasonably 
be  thought  about  Nimrod.  '  Our  present  information  does  not 
permit  us  to  identify  Nimrod  with  any  personage  known  to  us  either 
from  inscriptions  or  from  classical  writers.  Ninus  and  Belus  are 
representative  titles  rather  than  personal  names,  and  are  but  equivalent 
terms  for  '  the  lord,'  who  was  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  empires 
of  Babylon  and  Nineveh.  We  have  no  reason  on  this  account  to 
doubt  the  personal  existence  of  Nimrod,  for  the  events  with  which 
he  is  connected  fall  within  the  shadows  of  a  remote  antiquity.  But 
we  may,  nevertheless,  consistently  with  this  belief,  assume  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  interest  with  which  he  was  invested  was  the  mere 


THE  SCRIPTURE  FIGURE  OF  NIMROD.  79 

reflection  of  the  sentiments  with  which  the  nations  of  Western  Asia 
looked  back  on  the  overshadowing  greatness  of  the  ancient  Baby- 
lonian Empire,  the  very  monuments  of  which  seemed  to  tell  of  days 
when  "there  were  giants  in  the  earth."  The  feeling  which  suggested 
the  colouring  of  Nimrod  as  a  representative  hero  still  finds  place  in 
the  land  of  his  achievements,  and  to  him  the  modern  Arabs  ascribe 
all  the  great  works  of  ancient  times,  such  as  the  Birs  Nimriid,  near 
Babylon,  Tell  Nimrud,  near  Baghdad,  the  dam  of  Suhr  el  Nimrud 
across  the  Tigris  below  Mosul,  and  the  well-known  mound  of  Nimrud 
in  the  same  neighbourhood.' 

Prof.  George  Smith  has  an  interesting  note :  '  One  of  the  earliest 
and  chief  gods  of  Babylon  was  Nipru,  whom  Rawlinson  identifies 
with  Nimrod.  Among  recent  discoveries  in  Nineveh  and  Babylon 
are  many  scenes  of  the  chase.  Izdubar  (Nimrod)  legends,  from 
inscriptions  in  Nineveh,  appear  to  have  been  composed  2000  B.C. 
He  is  represented  as  a  great  hunter  or  giant,  who  obtained  the 
dominion  of  the  district  round  Babylon,  and  drove  out  a  tyrant  from 
Erech,  adding  this  region  to  his  kingdom.' 

The  legends  that  have  gathered  round  Nimrod  are  of  no  value, 
save  as  they  indicate  the  kind  of  impression  concerning  him,  his 
character,  and  career,  left  on  the  Eastern  mind  by  the  traditions  that 
had  come  from  early  times.  We  give,  as  a  specimen,  one  that  was 
told  to  Mr.  Layard,  by  Awad,  a  sheikh  of  the  Jehesh  tribe  of  Arabs. 
'  The  palace  was  built  by  Athur,  the  Kiayah,  or  lieutenant,  of  Nimrod. 
Here  the  holy  Abraham  (peace  be  with  him  !)  cast  down  and  brake 
in  pieces  the  idols  which  were  worshipped  by  the  unbelievers.  The 
impious  Nimrod,  enraged  at  the  destruction  of  his  gods,  sought  to 
slay  Abraham,  and  waged  war  against  him.  But  the  prophet  prayed 
to  God,  and  said,  "  Deliver  me,  O  God,  from  this  man,  who  worships 
stones,  and  boasts  himself  to  be  the  lord  of  all  beings."  And  God 
said  to  him,  "  How  shall  I  punish  him  ?"  And  the  prophet  answered, 
"To  Thee  armies  are  as  nothing,  and  the  strength  and  power  of  men 
likewise.  Before  the  smallest  of  Thy  creatures  they  will  perish." 
And  God  was  pleased  at  the  faith  of  the  prophet,  and  He  sent  a 
gnat,  which  vexed  Nimrod  night  and  day,  so  that  he  built  himself  a 
roof  of  glass  in  yonder  palace,  that  he  might  dwell  therein,  and  shut 
out  the  insect.  But  the  gnat  entered  also,  and  passed  by  his  ear  into 
his  brain,  upon  which  it  fed,  and  increased  in  size  day  by  day,  so 
that  the  servants  of  Nimrod  beat  his  head  with  a  hammer  continually, 
that  he  might  have  some  ease  from  his  pain  ;  but  he  died,  after 
suffering  these  torments  for  four  hundred  years.' 

Prof.  Sayce  gives  the  latest  word  :  '  The  name  of  Nimrod  has  not 


8o        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

yet  been  discovered  in  the  cuneiform  records.  Some  Assyrian  scholars 
have  wished  to  identify  him  with  Gisdhubar,  the  hero  of  the  great 
Chaldsean  epic,  which  contains  the  account  of  the  Deluge ;  but 
Gisdhubar  was  a  solar  hero  who  had  originally  been  the  Accadian 
god  of  fire.  It  is  true  Gisdhubar  was  the  special  deity  of  the  town 
of  Marad,  and  that  Na-Marad  would  signify  in  the  Accadian  language, 
"  the  prince  of  Marad  •"  such  a  title,  however,  has  not  been  found 
in  the  inscriptions.' 

Raman's  Plot. 

ESTHER  iii.  6:  'Wherefore  Haman  sought  to  destroy  all  the  Jews  that  were 
throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of  Ahasuerus,  even  the  people  of  Mordecai.' 

Question. — Did  Himan  propose  to  himself  merely  to  revenge  him- 
self on  Mordecai  by  this  massacre  of  the  Jews  ;  or  to  secure  the  death 
of  his  rival  by  this  scheme  ? 

Answer. — Such  general  race,  or  class,  massacres  are  very  strange 
and  dreadful  to  the  Western  mind,  but  they  are  sadly  familiar  to  Easterns. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  says  '  the  Magophonia,  or  the  great 
massacre  of  the  Magi  at  the  accession  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  was  an 
event  not  fifty  years  old  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Xerxes,  and  was  com- 
memorated annually.  A  massacre  of  the  Scythians  had  occurred 
about  a  century  previously.'  Jamieson  expresses  the  feeling  which  we 
all  have  on  reading  the  dreadful  story.  '  To  us  it  appears  unaccount- 
able how  any  sane  monarch  could  have  given  his  consent  to  the 
extirpation  of  a  numerous  class  of  his  subjects.  But  such  acts  of 
frenzied  barbarity  have,  alas,  not  rarely  been  authorized  by  careless 
and  voluptuous  despots,  who  have  allowed  their  ears  to  be  engrossed 
and  their  policy  directed  by  haughty  and  selfish  minions,  who  had 
their  own  passions  to  gratify,  their  own  ends  to  serve.'  Explaining 
the  conduct  of  Mordecai  and  Haman,  Jamieson  adds  :  '  Large  man- 
sions in  the  East  are  entered  by  the  spacious  vestibule,  or  gateways, 
along  the  sides  of  which  visitors  sit,  and  are  received  by  the  master 
of  the  house ;  for  none  except  the  nearest  relatives,  or  special  friends, 
are  admitted  further.  There  the  officers  of  the  ancient  King  of 
Persia  waited  till  they  were  called,  and  did  obeisance  to  the  all- 
powerful  minister  of  the  day.  The  obsequious  homage  of  prostra- 
tion, not  entirely  foreign  to  the  manners  of  the  East,  had  not  been 
claimed  by  former  viziers ;  but  Haman  required  that  all  subordinate 
officers  of  the  court  should  bow  before  him  with  their  faces  to  the 
earth.  But  to  Mordecai  it  seemed  that  such  an  attitude  of  profound 
reverence  was  due  only  to  God.  Haman  being  an  Amalekite,  one 


HAMAN'S  PLOT.  81 

of  a  doomed  and  accursed  race,  was  doubtless  another  element  in  the 
refusal ;  and  on  learning  that  the  recusant  was  a  Jew,  whose  noncon- 
formity was  grounded  on  religious  scruples,  the  magnitude  of  the 
affront  appeared  so  much  the  greater,  as  the  example  of  Mordecai 
would  be  imitated  by  all  his  compatriots.  Had  the  homage  been 
a  simple  token  of  civil  respect,  Mordecai  would  not  have  refused  it ; 
but  the  Persian  kings  demanded  a  sort  of  adoration,  which,  it  is  well 
known,  even  the  Greeks  reckoned  it  degradation  to  express,  and  as 
Xerxes,  in  the  height  of  his  favouritism,  had  commanded  the  same 
honours  to  be  given  to  the  minister  as  to  himself,  this  was  the  ground 
of  Mordecai's  refusal.  ...  In  resorting  to  the  method  of  Pur, 
or  Lot,  for  ascertaining  the  most  auspicious  day  for  putting  his 
atrocious  scheme  into  execution,  Haman  acted  as  the  kings  and 
nobles  of  Persia  have  always  done,  never  engaging  in  any  enterprise 
without  consulting  the  astrologers,  and  being  satisfied  as  to  the  lucky 
hour.  Vowing  revenge,  but  scorning  to  lay  hands  on  a  single  victim, 
he  meditated  the  extirpation  of  the  whole  Jewish  race,  who,  he  knew, 
were  sworn  enemies  of  his  countrymen,  and,  by  artfully  representing 
them  as  a  people  who  were  aliens  in  manners  and  habits,  and  enemies 
to  the  rest  of  his  subjects,  procured  the  king's  sanction  of  his  intended 
massacre.  One  motive  which  he  used  in  urging  his  point,  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  king's  cupidity.  Fearing  lest  his  master  might  object  that 
the  extermination  of  a  numerous  body  of  his  subjects  would  seriously 
depress  the  public  revenue,  Haman  promised  to  make  up  the  loss. ' 

Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  '  To  a  European  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
a  massacre  on  an  appointed  day,  by  permission  from  the  government, 
of  thousands  of  unoffending  persons,  seems  one  of  the  most  monstrous 
things  that  can  be  conceived.  We  have,  indeed,  one  instance  of 
such  a  fact  in  the  history  with  which  we  are  familiar  ;  but  the  massacre 
of  St.  Bartholomew  stands  by  itself  in  our  minds,  as  though  it  were 
a  solitary  case,  wholly  without  a  parallel.  Acquaintance  with  Oriental 
history  would  make  us  aware  that  in  the  East  such  terrible  doings  are 
not  infrequent ;  that  there  they  excite  little  horror,  and  do  not  appear 
strange  or  startling.  The  destruction  of  the  Mamelukes  at  Cairo ; 
that  of  the  Janissaries  at  Constantinople ;  and  the  attempted  de- 
struction of  the  Syrian  Christians  in  1850,  are  recent  examples  ;  the 
massacre  of  the  Scythians  by  the  Medes  ;  of  the  Magi  by  Darius 
Hystaspis  ;  and  of  all  the  Romans  in  Asia  by  Mithridates,  are  earlier 
instances.  To  sweep  a  tribe  or  petty  nation  out  of  his  path,  was 
thus  no  wild  or  extravagant  idea,  when  entertained  by  an  Oriental 
statesman,  who  knew  that  he  had  great  influence  with  his  sovereign, 
and  could  induce  him  to  sign  almost  any  decree  that  he  chose.' 

6 


82        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Another,  and  much  later,  instance  of  an  attempted  general 
massacre  may  be  given.  During  a  war  between  the  Russians  and 
Turks  in  1770,  some  of  the  Greeks,  whose  nation  had  long  been 
under  the  Turkish  yoke,  sided  with  the  Russians.  This  so  enraged 
the  Sultan  that  he  conceived  the  horrible  design  of  exterminating  the 
whole  nation ;  and  no  doubt  the  deed,  so  far  as  practicable,  would 
have  been  perpetrated  but  for  the  timely  advice  of  Hassan  Pasha, 
who  succeeded  in  gaining  a  general  amnesty  for  the  Greeks. 

Dr.  C.  Geikie  briefly  sums  up  the  plot.  '  At  one  sweep  Haman 
would  avenge  his  own  personal  grudge,  and  quench  the  hereditary 
feud  of  his  race  in  the  blood  of  the  whole  brood  of  the  hated  race  of 
Jews.  Insinuating  to  Xerxes  that  they  were  dangerous,  as  a  people 
who,  unlike  the  other  subject  races  of  the  empire,  insisted  on  observ- 
ing their  own  laws  rather  than  those  of  the  king,  and  thus  formed  a 
ready  centre  for  revolt,  he  obtained  leave  to  arrange  for  their  massacre 
everywhere  throughout  the  empire,  recommending  his  proposal  by 
promising  a  vast  sum  to  the  treasury  from  their  wealth.' 

Geikie  adds  an  interesting  note  on  the  absolute  despotism  of 
Persian  kings.  These  are  familiar  Persian  expressions.  *  The  will 
of  the  ruler  is  the  will  of  the  godhead.'  'Well  spoken!  The  true 
Persian  rejoices  to  be  allowed  to  kiss  the  hand  of  his  ruler,  even  if  it 
be  stained  with  his  child's  blood.'  '  Cambyses  has  put  my  brother 
to  death,  but  I  murmur  at  him  for  it  no  more  than  I  did  at  the  god- 
head, who  took  my  parents  from  me.'  ALschylus  calls  the  great 
king  'Persius  Susa-born  God.' 

The  Influence  of  the  Mixt  Multitude. 

NUMBERS  xi.  4  :  '  And  the  mixt  multitude  that  was  among  them  fell  a  lusting  : 
and  the  children  of  Israel  also  wept  again,  and  said,  Who  shall  give  us  flesh  to 
eat?' 

Question. —  Who  are  we  to  understand  by  this  '  mixt  multitude  '; 
and,  if  not  genuine  Israelites,  in  what  sense  did  they  come  under 
covenant  obligations  ? 

Answer. — This  question  involves  our  estimate  of  the  character 
and  conduct  of  the  children  of  Israel  throughout  their  wilderness 
experience.  It  is  usual  for  Bible  readers  to  think  of  the  Israelites, 
under  Moses,  as  being  strictly  and  exclusively  the  body-descendants 
of  Jacob.  It  alters  our  estimate  of  their  conduct,  and  makes  us  deal 
more  considerately  with  them,  when  we  realize  that  the  Israelites 
proper  were  in  close  association  with  large  numbers  of  persons  who 
were  not  Israelites,  and  were  not  under  the  covenant  obligations  save 
by  their  associations. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  MIXT  MULTITUDE.    83 

We  may  wisely  remind  ourselves  that,  as  tribes,  they  were  not  all 
Israelites.  The  servants,  herdmen,  etc.,  in  a  sense  belonged  to  the 
tribe,  and  came  under  the  obligations  that  rested  on  the  tribe,  but 
were  not  strictly  covenant-bound,  as  were  the  sons  of  Jacob.  The 
families  of  these  tribal  servants  multiplied  in  Egypt ;  and  it  may  well 
have  been  that  men  of  other  races  joined  the  Israelites  during  their 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  and  departed  from  Egypt  with  them  at  the  Exodus. 
The  impression  left  on  us  by  the  Bible  narrative  is,  that  while  some 
of  the  rebellions — such  as  Korah's — came  from  the  Israelites,  and 
rested  on  purely  Israelite  misconceptions,  the  more  common  and 
ordinary  murmurings  and  rebellions  were  caused  by  the  '  mixt  multi- 
tude,' who  could  hardly  be  expected  to  walk  by  faith  in  the  unseen 
Jehovah,  as  were  the  true  Israelites.  Aaron's  excuse  for  yielding, 
in  the  matter  of  the  '  Golden  Calf,'  seems  to  imply  that  the  '  people,' 
the  '  mixt  multitude,'  were  set  on  mischief,  and  he  rather  sought  to 
pacify  these  half-heathen,  than  to  meet  the  ideas  of  the  Israelites, 
who,  however,  were  thoroughly  carried  away  by  the  excitement. 

In  Exodus  xii.  37,  38,  we  read  :  *  And  the  children  of  Israel 
journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Succoth,  about  six  hundred  thousand  on 
foot  that  were  men,  besides  children.  And  a  mixed  multitude  went 
up  also  with  them  ;  and  flocks,  and  herds,  even  very  much  cattle.' 

The  word  translated  '  mixt  multitude,'  in  Num.  xi.  4  is  a  peculiar 
one,  found  in  the  text  only.  Hasaph-suph  may  be  best  translated 
1  riff-raff.'  It  denotes  a  mob  of  people  scraped  together.  '  They 
consisted  probably  of  remains  of  the  old  Semitic  population  of  Egypt, 
whether  or  not  first  brought  into  the  district  by  the  Hyksos  is  uncer- 
tain. As  natural  objects  of  suspicion  and  dislike  to  the  Egyptians 
vvho  had  lately  become  masters  of  the  country,  they  would  be  anxious 
:o  escape,  the  more  especially  after  the  calamities  which  preceded 
:he  Exodus.'  (Speaker's  Commentary."]  'Some  may  have  been 
Egyptians,  impressed  by  the  recent  miracles ;  some  foreigners  held 
;o  servitude,  like  the  Israelites,  and  glad  to  escape  from  their  masters, 
[t  is  noticeable  that  the  Egyptian  writers,  in  their  perverted  accounts 
)f  the  Exodus,  made  a  multitude  of  foreigners  (Hyksos)  take  part 
•vith  the  Hebrews.'  (Professor  G.  JRawlinson.) 

Such  persons  came  under  covenant-obligations  by  virtue  of  their 
issociation  with  the  Israelites.  If  they  shared  covenant  privileges, 
hey  must  share  covenant  responsibilities.  But,  in  their  case,  we  can 
lardly  look  for  those  helps  to  obedience  which  come  out  of  personal 
•eligion,  which  we  expect  to  find  in  the  case  of  the  Israelites. 


6—2 


84        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
Saul  and  Abner's  Ignorance  of  David. 

i  SAMUEL  xvii.  55  :  '  And  when  Saul  saw  David  go  forth  against  the  Philistine, 
he  said  unto  Abner,  the  captain  of  the  host,  Abner,  whose  son  is  this  youth  ?  And 
Abner  said,  As  thy  soul  liveth,  O  king,  I  cannot  tell.' 

Difficulty. — Seeing  that  David  had  been  for  some  time  the  court 
minstrel,  it  is  strange  to  find  that  he  was  not  recognised,  either  by  the 
king,  or  by  Abner,  the  court  officer. 

Explanation. — It  is  now  fully  recognised  that  the  Historical 
Books,  in  the  form  we  have  them,  are  a  compilation  from  a  variety  of 
traditions,  or  historical  documents :  and  careful  students  can  trace 
where  the  documents  have  been  put  together,  but  not  precisely 
fitted.  Sometimes  the  narratives  overlap ;  sometimes  one  narrator 
carries  his  story  to  its  conclusion,  and  the  next  narrator  gives  inter- 
vening incidents.  We  have,  probably,  an  instance  of  this  kind  here. 
The  story  of  David's  introduction  to  Saul,  as  given  in  ch.  xvi.  14-23, 
belongs  to  a  separate  document,  which  contained  no  account  of  the 
conflict  with  Goliath.  It  therefore  carries  on  David's  relations  with 
the  court  beyond  the  time  of  the  battle  at  Ephes-dammim,  and  in- 
cludes his  taking  official  position  as  the  king's  armour-bearer.  We 
may  recognise  that  there  were  existing,  at  the  time,  two  traditions  of 
the  circumstances  under  which  David  was  introduced  to  court. 
These  certainly  conflicted  in  some  degree,  and  both  have  been 
retained  in  the  Scripture  record. 

If  we  might  make  the  attempt  to  put  the  early  incidents  of  David's 
court  life  in  order,  we  might  assume  that  he  was  introduced,  by  one 
of  the  servants,  as  a  skilful  '  player  on  an  harp,'  and  a  likely  man  to 
soothe  the  king's  mental  irritation.  But  the  king,  in  such  a  state  of 
mind,  would  take  no  notice  of  the  player  ;  and,  as  his  attacks  came 
on  with  extensive  intervals,  David's  services  were  only  occasionally 
required,  and  he  was  probably  sent  for  when  wanted.  Then  came 
the  conflict  with  Goliath,  and  the  direction  of  Saul's  attention  to 
David,  which  led  him  to  ask  Jesse  for  the  constant  attendance  of  his 
son  at  court,  where  David  at  once  took  an  office  as  courtier  ;  but,  on 
occasion,  exercised  his  old  musical  gift  in  soothing  the  king's  madness. 
It  should  not  occasion  any  surprise  that  Abner  did  not  know  the 
youth,  for  the  busy  military  man  was  not  in  the  least  likely  to  take 
any  notice  of  the  court  minstrel. 

Ewald  is  the  advocate  of  the  theory  of  two  narrators.  One  he 
finds  in  ch.  xvi.  14-23,  the  other  in  ch.  xvii.  But  concerning  the 
work  of  the  first  narrator  he  says :  '  It  is  beyond  doubt,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  it  must  have  been  some  such  extraordinary  feat  of  arms 


SAUL  AND  ABNERS  IGNORANCE  OF  DAVID.     85 

which  first  brought  David  to  Saul's  notice,  as  a  hero  of  whose  warlike 
capacity  he  ought  to  avail  himself;  and  as  to  the  sequel,  we  know 
from  the  histories  of  many  ancient  nations  that  in  those  times  a  whole 
war  might  turn  on  a  single  combat  undertaken  with  due  formalities  by 
the  heroes  of  the  two  armies.'  Ewald  adds  to  this  passage  a  sugges- 
tive note  :  *  We  assume  that  even  the  earlier  narrator  mentioned  the 
single  combat  between  David  and  Goliath  :  the  passages,  ch.  xviii.  6  ; 
xix.  5  ;  xxi.  10  (xxi.  9),  leave  us  no  doubt  on  this  point ;  besides,  the 
words  which  describe  the  final  result  of  the  achievement  (ch.  xviii.  i, 
3-5),  to  judge  from  their  colouring,  are  from  the  earlier  narrator.' 

Those  who  object  to  this  explanation  of  the  difficulty,  by  the  theory 
of  two  conflicting  traditions,  point  out  that  '  it  is  quite  consistent  with 
the  genius  of  Hebrew  narrative  for  the  narrator  to  pursue  his  theme 
to  its  ultimate  consequences  in  respect  to  the  leading  idea  of  his  narra- 
tive, and  then  to  return  to  fill  up  the  details  which  had  been  omitted. 
Thus  the  words  "  he  loved  him  greatly,  and  he  became  his  armour- 
bearer;  and  Saul  sent  to  Jesse,  saying,  Let  David  stand  before  me," 
etc.,  are  the  ultimate  sequence  of  David's  first  visit  to  Saul,  and  of 
his  skill  in  music,  and  are,  therefore,  placed  here ;  but  they  did  not 
really  come  to  pass  till  after  David's  victory  over  Goliath.'  To  this 
peculiarity  of  Hebrew  historical  writing  due  attention  should  be  paid. 
\s  illustrations  of  it,  references  are  made  to  i  Sam.  xviii.  2  ;  xxii.  20  ; 
2  Sam..xvi.  22  ;  xvii.  i,  17  ;  also  Gen.  xi.  31,  32  ;  xii.  1-5 ;  Judg.  xx. 
md  i  Sam.  xiv.  47-52. 

Kitto  gives  a  very  simple  and  common-sense  account  of  what  pro- 
)ably  occurred,  which  certainly  relieves  the  narrative  of  its  principal 
lifficulties,  and,  whether  we  regard  it  as  entirely  successful  or  not,  is 
:ertainly  deeply  interesting.  '  It  would  seem  that  Saul,  while  under 
he  process  of  cure  for  his  grievous  malady,  contracted  great  regard 
or  David.  "  He  loved  him,  and  made  him  his  armour-bearer," 
he  latter  being  a  mere  honorary  mark  of  consideration  and  attach- 
nent,  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  actual  war.  By  degrees  the  in- 
ervals  of  the  king's  phrenzy  became  more  distant,  and  eventually  he 
eemed  to  be  altogether  cured.  The  services  of  David  being  no 
onger  required,  he  went  home  to  his  father,  and  resumed  the  care  of 
he  sheep.  By  this  it  would  seem  that  Saul's  affection  towards  his 
ealer  cooled  as  soon  as  the  cure  had  been  effected.  The  probability 
f  this  most  physicians  can  vouch  from  their  own  experience.  Besides, 
:  is  likely  that,  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  his  complaint,  Saul  cared 
ot  to  be  continually  reminded,  by  the  presence  of  his  healer,  of  the 
ifferings  he  had  gone  through,  and  of  paroxysms  which  it  humbled 
is  proud  mind  to  think  had  made  him  an  object  of  compassion  in 


86        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  eyes  of  his  subjects.  He  therefore  made  no  opposition  to  the 
application  for  his  son's  return  home,  which  Jesse  probably  made 
when  he  found  that  David's  services  were  no  longer  necessary.  An 
interval  passed — how  long  we  know  not,  but  probably  about  two  or 
three  years — when  we  again  behold  David  traversing  the  road  from 
Bethlehem,  nearly  in  the  same  condition  as  before.  But  his  appear- 
ance is  considerably  altered.  You  would  scarcely  know  him  for  the 
same  person  that  you  saw  some  three  years  ago.  He  was  then  a 
growing  youth ;  but  he  has  now  attained  to  greater  fulness  of  stature, 
and  to  more  firmly  knit  limbs.  Above  all,  his  beard  has  grown ;  and 
to  those  who,  like  us,  remove  the  beard  as  soon  as  it  appears,  the 
great  difference  produced  by  the  presence  of  this  appendage  on  the 
face  of  one  who,  a  year  or  two  ago,  was  a  beardless  youth,  is  scarcely 
conceivable.' 

Suggested  explanations  may  be  thus  summarized,  (i)  Saul's  mad- 
ness had  prevented  any  personal  observation  of  the  young  minstrel. 
(2)  In  the  interval  between  the  service  of  minstrelsy  and  the  combat 
with  Goliath,  David  had  grown,  as  we  say,  'out  of  memory.'  (3) 
Saul's  inquiry  did  not  concern  David's  name,  but  the  rank  and  posi- 
tion of  his  family.  The  inquiry  was  a  suitable  one,  seeing  that 
David  was  to  become  the  king's  son-in-law,  according  to  the  king's 
promise  of  reward  to  the  victor  over  Goliath.  But  (4)  'the  real 
solution,  we  cannot  but  think,  lies  in  the  fact  that  this,  and  the  other 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  made  up  by  the  inspired 
compiler  from  well-authenticated  traditions  current  in  Israel,  and  most 
probably  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  great  prophetical  school 
Two  of  these  are  here  selected,  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  covei 
the  same  ground.'  It  should  be  observed  that,  in  the  earlier  passage 
(i  Sam.  xvi.  14-23),  no  note  of  time  occurs :  this  first  notice  being 
wholly  concerned  with  the  influence  of  David's  music  on  the  king's 
mental  disease.  (Dr.  Spence.) 


The  Pharaoh  that  knew  not  Joseph. 

EXODUS  i.  8  :  '  Now  there  arose  up  a  new  king  over  Egypt,  which  knew  nc 
Joseph. 

Question. — Have  recent  discoveries  helped  towards  the  identified 
tion  of  this  Pharaoh  ? 

Answer. — Professor  Sayce  considers  the  identification  is  definitel 
settled  by  the  excavations  recently  undertaken  at  Tel  el-Maskhut; 
These  confirm  the  opinion  of  many  Egyptian  scholars,  that  th 
Pharaoh  of  the  oppression  was  the  great  Ramses  II.,  and  the  Pharao 


THE  PHARAOH  THAT  KNEW  NOT  JOSEPH.      87 


of  the  Exodus  his  son  and  successor,  Meneptah  II.,  who  came  to  the 
throne  about  B.C.  1325.  Budge  gives  the  list  of  kings  succeeding 
the  Hyksos,  and  forming  the  i8th  and  iQth  dynasties,  as  follows  : 


i8th  Dynasty. 
Ahmes 

Amenhetep  I. 
Thothmes  I. 
Thothmes  II. 
Thothmes  III. 
Amenhetep  II. 
Thothmes  IV. 
Amenhetep  III. 
Her-em-heb 
Heretic  Kings 


1700 
1666 

1633 
1600 
1600 
1566 

1533 
1500 
1466 
H33 


1 9th  Dynasty. 

Ramses  I.  ...         ...  1400 

Setil 1366 

Ramses  II.  1333 

Merenptah,  or  Meneptah  1300 

Seti  II.  1266 


Under  Thothmes  III.,  and  other  great  monarchs  of  the  i8th 
dynasty,  wars  of  aggression  into  Asia  were  carried  on,  and  Egyptian 
armies  penetrated  as  far  as  the  Euphrates.  The  tribes  of  Canaan 
were  brought  under  tribute.  *  On  the  temple-walls  of  Karnak  at 
Thebes,  Thothmes  III.  (B.C.  1600)  gives  a  list  of  the  Canaanitish 
towns  which  had  submitted  to  his  arms.'  Two  centuries  later  the 
same  districts  had  again  been  overrun  by  the  Egyptian  kings,  especi- 
ally by  Seti  I.,  and  Ramses  II.,  the  latter  'battling  for  long  years 
against  the  Hittites  on  the  plains  of  Canaan,  and  establishing  a  line 
of  Egyptian  fortresses  as  far  north  as  Damascus.'  The  argument  for 
Ramses  II.  as  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression  is  given  by  Sayce, 
'  The  accounts  of  the  wars  of  himself  and  his  predecessors  in  Canaan, 
show  that  up  to  the  date  of  his  death  that  country  was  not  yet  in- 
habited by  Israelites.  Not  only  is  no  mention  made  of  them,  but 
the  history  of  the  Book  of  Judges  precludes  our  supposing  that 
Palestine  could  have  been  an  Egyptian  province  after  the  Israelitish 
conquest.  It  must  have  ceased  to  be  tributary  to  the  Pharaohs  before 
it  was  entered  by  Joshua.  Moreover,  the  name  of  the  city  of  Ramses 
(Raamses),  built  by  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  points  unmistakably  to 
the  reign  of  the  great  Ramses  II.  himself.  The  name  was  given  to 
Zoan  after  its  reconstruction  by  this  monarch  :'  and,  singularly,  we 
find  mention  made  of  a  certain  class  of  foreigners,  called  Aperiu  (not 
unlike  Hebrew],  who  were  employed  by  Ramses  II.  to  work  at  his 
monuments. 

The  argument  from  the  excavations  of  M.  Naville  is  as  follows  : 
'  Tel  el-Maskhuta  is  the  name  of  some  large  mounds  near  Tel  el- 
Kebir  and  other  places  which  were  the  scene  of  the  late  war ;  and 
M.  Naville,  who  has  excavated  them  for  the  Egyptian  Exploration 
Fund,  has  found  inscriptions  in  them  which  show  not  only  that  they 
represent  an  ancient  city  whose  religious  name  was  Pithom,  while  its 
civil  name  was  Succoth,  but  also  that  the  founder  of  the  city  was 


88        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Ramses  II.  In  Greek  times  the  city  was  called  Heroopolis,  or  Ero, 
from  the  Egyptian  word  ara,  "a  store-house,"  reminding  us  that 
Pithom  and  Raamses,  which  the  Israelites  built  for  the  Pharaoh, 
were  "  treasure-cities,"  Exod.  i.  n).  M.  Naville  has  even  discovered 
the  treasure-chambers  themselves.  They  are  very  strongly  con- 
structed, and  divided  by  brick  partitions  from  eight  to  ten  feet 
thick,  the  bricks  being  sun-baked,  and  made  some  with  and 
some  without  straw.  The  name  Pithom — in  Egyptian  Pa-Turn — 
signifies  the  city  of  the  setting  sun  ;  and  since  it  had  another  name, 
Succoth,  we  can  now  understand  how  it  was  that  the  Israelites 
started  on  their  march  not  from  Goshen,  but  from  Succoth  (Exod.  xiii. 
20) — that  is,  from  the  very  place  where  they  had  been  working.'  Miss 
Whately  says  :  '  Herodotus  and  others  mention  Pithom  ;  Rameses  * 
is  only  mentioned  in  Exodus  ;  but  its  site  has  been  ascertained  by  the 
discovery  of  a  granite  statue  of  Rameses,  between  two  statues  of 
Egyptian  gods,  with  the  king's  name  inscribed  repeatedly  on  different 
parts  of  it.' 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  connection  of  the  Israelite  op- 
pression with  Ramses  II.  is  now  definitely  fixed ;  and  it  may  be 
well  to  note  that  this  king  reigned  sixty-seven  years ;  as  co-regent 
with  his  father,  Seti  I.,  for  more  than  half  the  time. 

Canon  Rawlinson  thinks  Seti  I.  should  be  regarded  as  the  op- 
pressor. He  explains  the  reason  for  the  oppression  found  in  the 
political  circumstances  of  the  country  during  Seti's  reign :  but  we 
have  observed  above  how  closely  Ramses  II.  was  associated  with 
him.  '  Egypt  had  at  this  time  lost  all  those  Asiatic  possessions  which 
had  been  gained  under  the  earlier  kings  of  the  i8th  dynasty — 
Thothmes  I.,  Thothmes  III.,  and  Amen-hetep  II. — and  had  retired 
within  her  own  natural  borders.  South-western  Asia  had  fallen  under 
the  dominion  of  the  Khita  or  Hittites,  who  had  gradually  extended 
their  dominion  from  the  Cappadocian  highlands  to  the  low  regions  of 
Philistia  and  Western  Arabia.  In  alliance  with  the  other  Canaanite 
nations,  with  the  Philistines,  and  even  with  the  Arabs  (Shasu),  the 
Hittites  threatened  an  invasion  of  Egypt,  which,  it  was  felt,  might 
have  the  most  disastrous  consequences.  What,  if  this  contingency 
actually  occurred,  would  be  the  part  taken  by  the  Israelites  ?  Might 
it  not  be  that  they  would  "join  themselves  to  Egypt's  enemies,  and 
fight  against  the  Egyptians  "  (Exod.  i.  10),  and  so  either  help  to  bring 
them  under  subjection  to  the  Hittites,  or  else  "  get  themselves  up  out 
of  the  land  "  ?  The  Israelites  occupied  the  portion  of  Egypt  which 
the  Hittites  would  first  enter ;  if  they  joined  the  enemy  they  would 

*  The  name  Ramses  is  also  spelt  Rameses. 


THE  SCEPTRE  IN  JUDAH.  89 

deliver  into  his  hands  a  large  tract  of  most  valuable  territory,  and  put 
him  into  a  position  from  which  he  would  threaten  the  most  important 
of  the  Egyptian  cities — Tanis,  Heliopolis,  Bubastis,  Memphis.  Re- 
flecting upon  this,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  time — Seti  I.,  according  to  our 
view — deemed  it  incumbent  on  him  to  take  such  measures  as  should 
seriously  weaken  and  depress  his  Israelite  subjects,  crush  their 
aspirations,  destroy  their  physical  vigour,  and  by  degrees  diminish 
their  numbers.' 

Geikie  sums  up  modern  opinion  thus  :  *  It  was  left  to  Ramses  II., 
the  Sesostris  of  the  Greeks — the  ninth  king  after  Thothmes  III.,  and 
the  third  monarch  of  the  igth  dynasty — to  earn  for  himself,  especi- 
ally, the  evil  distinction  of  the  Oppressor  of  the  Hebrews.  The 
Exodus  is  believed  by  Maspero  to  have  taken  place  under  Seti  II., 
the  next  king  but  one  after  Ramses ;  but  De  Rouge",  Chabas, 
Lenormant,  Sayce,  Lepsius,  Brugsch,  Ebers,  and  others,  agree  in 
assigning  it  to  the  reign  of  Meneptah  I.,  Ramses'  son  and  successor.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  argues  for  Aahmes,  founder  of  the 
1 8th  dynasty. 

The  Sceptre  in  Judah. 

GENESIS  xlix.  10  :  '  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  the  ruler's 
staff  from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come  ;  and  unto  him  shall  obedience  of 
the  peoples  be.' — Rev.  Ver. 

Difficulty. — If  Shiloh  be  the  Messiah,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  the 
retention  of  royal  power  by  Judah  right  up  to  Messiahs  times. 

Explanation. — It  has  been  suggested  that  this  verse  should 
read,  '  until  they  come  to  Shiloh,'  and  then  the  history  can  be  shown 
easily  to  match  the  prophecy.  The  first  camp  of  the  Israelites  was 
stationed  at  Gilgal,  but  it  was  removed  to  Shiloh,  about  ten  miles 
south  of  Shechem,  and  twenty-five  miles  north  of  Jerusalem.  Judah 
had  all  along  been  the  foremost  tribe  in  fighting  the  battles  through 
which  the  people  had  passed ;  and  this  important  rule,  or  leadership, 
continued  until  the  tribes  came  to  Shiloh,  and  then  there  was  no 
more  need  of  it.  But  this  rendering  is  certainly  opposed  to  all  the 
ancient  versions  ;  and  it  may  also  be  noted  that  the  town  of  Shiloh 
was  within  the  territory  of  Ephraim,  and  not  of  Judah. 

The  word  must  be  treated  as  a  proper  name,  and  read  either  (i) 
Shiloh,  the  < Peacemaker,'  or  'Prince  of  Peace,'  or  (2)  Sheloh,  'He 
whose  right  it  is.'  The  reference  to  Messiah  was  recognised  by  all 
Jewish  antiquity.  '  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  prophecy  was 
one  important  link  in  the  long  chain  of  prediction  which  produced 
that  general  expectation  of  a  Messiah  universally  prevalent  in  Judaea 


90        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

at  the  period  of  the  Christian  era,  and  which  Suetonius,  in  the  well- 
known  passage  in  his  life  of  Vespasian,  tells  us  had  long  and  con- 
stantly pervaded  the  whole  of  the  East.' 

Still  it  must  be  frankly  admitted  that,  taking  the  passage  in  its 
apparent  meaning,  as  declaring  that  royalty  should  be  kept  in  the 
tribe  of  Judah  until  the  coming  of  Messiah,  history  does  not  confirm 
the  prophecy.  The  Babylonian  Captivity  destroyed  the  royalty  of 
Judah  for  a  time,  and  the  Roman  conquest  destroyed  it  for  ever,  long 
before  Messiah  appeared.  The  question  is  whether  the  prophecy 
declares  absolute  sovereignty  for  Judah,  or  only  tribal  superiority. 
Probably  our  associations  with  sceptres  have  made  us  put  more 
meaning  into  the  words  of  Jacob  than  he  intended  to  express. 

All  that  can  wisely  be  said  is  well  said  by  Bishop  Harold  Browne. 
'  As  regards  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy,  it  is  undoubted  that  the 
tribal  authority,  and  the  highest  place  in  the  nation,  continued  with 
Judah  until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  true  that,  after  the 
Babylonish  Captivity,  the  royalty  was  not  in  the  house  of  Judah ;  but 
the  prophecy  is  not  express  as  to  the  possession  of  absolute  royalty. 
Israel  never  ceased  to  be  a  nation,  Judah  never  ceased  to  be  a  tribe 
with  at  least  a  tribal  sceptre  and  lawgivers,  or  expositors  of  the  Law, 
Sanhedrim  or  Senators,  and  with  a  general  pre-eminence  in  the  land, 
nor  was  there  a  foreign  ruler  of  the  people,  till  at  least  the  time  of 
Herod  the  Great,  just  before  the  birth  of  the  Saviour ;  and  even 
the  Herods,  though  of  Idumsean  extraction,  were  considered  as  ex- 
ercising a  native  sovereignty  in  Judah,  which  did  not  quite  pass 
away  till  a  Roman  procurator  was  sent  thither,  after  the  reign  of 
Archelaus,  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great :  and  at  that  very  time  the 
Shiloh  came,  the  Prince  of  Peace,  to  whom  of  right  the  kingdom 
belonged.' 

The  Jordan  Memorials. 

JOSHUA  iv.  9  :  *  And  Joshua  set  up  twelve  stones  in  the  midst  of  Jordan,  in  the 
place  where  the  feet  of  the  priests  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  stood  ;  and 
they  are  there  unto  this  day.' 

JOSHUA  iv.  20 :  '  And  those  twelve  stones,  which  they  took  out  of  Jordan,  did 
Joshua  pitch  in  Gilgal.' 

Difficulty. — There  seem  to  be  two  contradictory  accounts  of  the 
position  found  for  the  twelve-stone  memorial.  One  account  leads  us  to 
think  they  were  piled  in  the  bed  of  Jordan  ;  the  other  finds  for  them  a 
place  at  Gilgal. 

Explanation. — The  easiest  way  to  remove  this  difficulty  is  to 
assume  two  distinct  sets  of  stones,  and  this  is  done  by  Geikie.  '  An 
event  so  wonderful  could  not  be  allowed  to  pass  without  a  memorial, 


THE  JORDAN  MEMORIALS.  9 1 

and  a  double  one  was  appointed,  worthy  of  it  in  expressive  sim- 
plicity. Twelve  of  the  large  stones  laid  bare  in  the  bed  of  the  river 
were  ordered  to  be  carried  over  to  the  western  side  and  raised  on  the 
upper  terrace  of  the  valley,  in  the  centre  of  the  new  camping-ground, 
while  a  second  twelve  were  placed  on  the  spot  in  the  channel,  where 
the  feet  of  the  priests  had  stood  during  the  crossing.' 

It  is  difficult,  however,  to  see  what  purpose  could  be  served  by  a 
memorial  which  either  the  waters  would  regularly  cover,  or  the  first 
flood  time  overthrow.  If  any  reasonable  explanation  of  the  two 
notices  can  be  found,  which  assumes  only  one  set  of  stones,  we 
should  certainly  prefer  it,  and  think  it  altogether  more  probable.  We 
might  even  admit  some  confusion  in  those  who,  at  a  later  time, 
reported  what  had  occurred,  which  led  them  to  write  so  uncertainly. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  gets  over  the  difficulty  of  two  memorials 
by  supposing  that  the  priests  stood  on  the  extreme  edge  of  the 
river,  and  so  their  memorial  would  only  be  reached  by  the  fringe  of 
any  flood,  and  might,  therefore,  stand  for  generations. 

The  German  commentators  incline  to  the  idea  that  the  verse  9  is 
a  '  fragment  of  a  totally  different  version  of  the  transaction  carelessly 
incorporated  by  the  historian.' 

Without  discussing  the  question,  Dean  Stanley  writes  of  the 
national  memorial  as  if  it  were  a  single  thing.  '  Carried  aloft  before 
the  priests  as  they  left  the  river-bed  were  "twelve  stones,"  selected 
by  the  twelve  chiefs  of  the  tribes.  These  were  planted  on  the  upper 
terrace  of  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  and  became  the  centre  of  the 
first  sanctuary  of  the  Holy  Land — the  first  place  pronounced  "  holy," 
the  "  sacred  place  "  of  the  Jordan  valley,  where  the  tabernacle  re- 
mained till  it  was  fixed  at  Shiloh.  Gilgal  long  retained  reminiscences 
of  its  ancient  sanctity.  The  twelve  stones  taken  up  from  the  bed  of 
the  Jordan  continued  at  least  till  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  and  seem  to  have  been  invested  with  a  reverence 
which  came  to  be  regarded  at  last  as  idolatrous.' 

The  Descendants  of  Zerubbabel. 

I  CHRON.  iii.  19,  20  :  '  And  the  sons  of  Pedaiah  were  Zerubbabel  and  Shimei  : 
and  the  sons  of  Zerubbabel,  Meshullam  and  Hananiah,  and  Shelomith  their 
sister  :  and  Hashubah,  and  Ohel,  and  Berechiah,  and  Hasadiah,  Jushab-hesed, 
five.' 

Difficulty. — If  this  Zerubbabel  is  the  prince  who  led  the  exiles  back 
to  Jerusalem,  the  Book  of  Chronicles  must  be  a  very  late  composition. 

Explanation. — From  verses  17,  1 8,  we  learn  that  Zerubbabel, 
who  is  elsewhere  called  '  the  son  of  Salathiel '  was  really  his  nephew, 


92        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  son  of  his  brother,  Pedaiah,  and  only  his  son  in  the  legal  sense 
of  being  his  heir.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  this  Zerubbabel  is  the 
leader  of  the  first  Return  from  Babylon,  under  the  edict  of  Cyrus  (B.C. 
dr.  536).  If  the  genealogy,  as  compiled  by  the  writer  of  this  Book 
of  Chronicles  includes  him  and  his  sons,  it  is  clear  that  the  book 
must  have  been  composed,  or  put  together  from  existing  materials, 
after  the  Return. 

'  That  the  Book  of  Chronicles  was  composed  after  the  return  from 
the  Captivity  is  evident,  not  only  from  its  closing  passage,  but  from 
other  portions  of  it.  A  comparison  of  i  Chron.  ix.  10-16  with 
Nehem.  xi.  10-17  w^  show  that  almost  the  whole  of  i  Chron.  ix. 
belongs  to  the  period  after  the  Captivity.  Ch.  iii.  of  the  same  part  of 
the  work  contains  a  genealogy  of  the  descendants  of  Zerubbabel 
(verses  19-24),  which  is  continued  down  to,  at  least,  the  third  genera- 
tion. The  date  of  i  Chronicles  cannot  well  be  earlier  than  B.C.  538, 
but  may  be  later,  and  is  indeed  thought  by  some  to  be  very  consider- 
ably later.'  (Speaker's  Commentary.} 

1  The  remarkable  genealogy  of  Zerubbabel  is  clear  evidence  on 
which  we  must  bring  the  compilation  of  Chronicles  to  a  date  sub- 
sequent to  the  Return  and  the  partial  resettlement  of  those  who 
returned,  some  "in  the  cities,"  and  some  "in  Jerusalem."  Either 
the  verses  relating  to  the  family  of  Zerubbabel  must  be  proved  to  be 
an  interpolation  or  addition  by  a  later  hand  (as  is  held  by  Eichhorn, 
Dahler,  Jahn,  Keil),  or  we  are  brought  down  to  a  still  lower  date. 
Even  when  (with  Bertheau)  we  have  counted  the  six  entries  of  verse 
2 1  as  names  all  of  brothers,  six  generations  appear  to  succeed  Zerubba- 
bel. However,  Keil,  Movers,  Havernick,  and  others  think  that 
Zerubbabel's  genealogy  in  this  passage  really  stops  with  the  grandsons 
Pelatiah  and  Jesaiah.  And  there  is  some  reason  for  supposing  with 
Bishop  Hervey,  that  these  six  names  should  not  stand  as  six  genera- 
tions after  Zerubbabel.  But  if  both  these  theories  be  inadmissible, 
we  are  still  not  necessarily  driven  to  Prideaux's  position,  that  the  six 
generations,  and  the  average  length  which  he  assumes  for  them,  will 
bring  us  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  B.C.  356-324.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  he  overestimates  the  average  of  Eastern  genera- 
tions, and,  if  this  be  reduced  to  tiventy  years,  we  shall  only  be  brought 
to  a  date  varying  between  B.C.  420-410,  within  the  probable  lifetime 
of  Nehemiah,  and  the  very  possible  lifetime  of  Ezra.  While,  then, 
such  a  date  as  this  is  probably  the  latest  that  needs  to  be  accepted,  it 
stands  to  reason  that  the  date  at  the  other  extremity  must  not  be 
placed  simply  at  the  time  of  the  Return.  In  the  nature  of  things,  a 
work  like  the  Chronicles,  though  but  a  matter  of  compilation,  could 


IDENTIFICA  TION  OF  AHASUER  US.  93 

not  be  executed  off-hand  and  rapidly  at  such  a  time.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  unsettledness  and  the  stir  of  the  times  would  constitute  the 
unlikeliest  of  conditions.  Our  general  conclusion  would  be  that, 
judging  from  internal  evidence,  the  date  of  compilation  must  be 
placed  between  a  limit  some  several  years  subsequent  to  the  Return 
and  the  year  B.C.  410  or  thereabout — how  much  nearer  the  latter  than 
the  former  still  uncertain.'  (Professor  Barker,  in  l  Pupit  Commentary'} 

Identification  of  Ahasuerus. 

ESTHER  i.  I  :  '  Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Ahasuerus  (this  is  Ahasuerus 
which  reigned,  from  India  even  unto  Ethiopia,  over  an  hundred  and  seven  and 
twenty  provinces).' 

Difficulty. — This  name  does  not  appear  in  the  Persian  annals. 

Explanation. — Though  the  name  does  not  appear  in  this  precise 
form,  the  fault  is  only  in  this  form  not  adequately  representing  the 
Hebrew  translation  of  the  name  as  it  stands  in  the  Persian  annals. 
The  name  of  this  monarch  that  is  familiar  to  us,  through  Grecian 
history,  is  Xerxes,  which  is  a  Greek  representation  of  the  Persian 
name  Khshayarsha  (the  ruling  eye).  This  king  ruled  from  B.C.  485 
to  464.  Represented  strictly  in  the  Hebrew  spelling,  this  name  would 
read  Akhashverosh,  which  is  easily  seen  to  be  the  same  as  Ahasuerus. 
The  addition  of  the  A  at  the  beginning  of  the  word  is  only  a  help  in 
the  difficult  pronunciation. 

Ellicotfs  Commentary  points  out  that  the  Bible  representation  of 
the  character  of  Ahasuerus,  and  the  classical  account  of  the  character 
of  Xerxes,  precisely  correspond.  *  Ahasuerus  is  an  ordinary  specimen 
of  an  Eastern  despot,  who  knows  no  law  save  the  gratification  of  his 
own  passions,  and  of  the  passing  caprice  of  the  moment.  He  sends 
for  nis  queen  in  defiance  of  decency  and  courtesy,  to  grace  a  rival, 
and  deposes  her  for  a  refusal  simply  indicative  of  self-respect ;  he  is 
willing  to  order  the  destruction  of  a  whole  people  throughout  his 
empire,  at  the  request  of  the  favourite  of  the  time ;  when  the  tide  of 
favour  turns,  the  favourite  is  not  only  disgraced,  but  he  and  all  his 
family  are  ruthlessly  destroyed,  and  Mordecai  rises  from  a  humble 
position  to  be  the  new  vizier.  Thus,  though  God  shapes  all  this  for 
good,  the  instrument  is  distinctly  evil.  How  similar  is  the  picture 
shown  in  the  undying  story  of  Herodotus,  of  the  king  who,  reckless 
of  the  overthrow  of  his  father's  armies  at  Marathon  ten  short  years 
before,  will  make  a  fresh  attempt  to  crush  the  nation  on  whose 
success  the  freedom  of  the  world  was  to  hinge ;  who  comes  with  a 
host  so  vast  that,  in  the  poet's  hyperbole,  they  drink  the  rivers  dry;  who 


94        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

has  a  throne  erected  to  view  the  slaughter  of  Leonidas  and  his  three 
hundred ;  who  gazes  from  Mount  ^Egaleos  at  the  vast  fleet  in  the 
Bay  of  Salamis,  soon  to  be  routed  and  broken  by  Themistocles  ! 
The  king,  who  a  few  weeks  before  has  the  Hellespont  scourged, 
because  it  presumes  to  be  stormy  and  break  his  bridges,  now  flees 
away  in  panic,  leaving  his  fleet  to  its  fate.' 

No  earlier  Persian  king  can  be  meant,  because  before  this  India 
was  not  included  in  Persian  territory.  This  Xerxes  was  the  son  of 
Darius  Hystaspis. 

Rawlinson  confirms  this  identification  :  '  The  name  Ahasuerus  is 
undoubtedly  the  proper  Hebrew  equivalent  for  the  Persian  word 
which  the  Greeks  represented  by  Xerxes.  .  .  .  And  we  are  at  once 
struck  with  the  strong  resemblance  which  his  character  bears  to  that 
assigned  by  the  classical  writers  to  the  celebrated  son  of  Darius.  Proud, 
self-willed,  amorous,  careless  of  contravening  Persian  customs  ;  reck- 
less of  human  life,  yet  not  actually  bloodthirsty ;  impetuous,  facile, 
changeable,  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther  corresponds  in  all  respects  to  the 
Greek  portraiture  of  Xerxes,  which  is  not  the  mere  picture  of  an 
Oriental  despot,  but  has  various  peculiarities  which  distinguish  it 
even  from  the  other  Persian  kings.' 

Cambyses  is  called  Ahasuerus  in  Ezra  iv.  6,  but  he  cannot  be 
meant. 


Mosaic  Preparations  for  a  Time  of  Kingship. 

DEUT.  xvii.  14,  15  :  'When  thou  art  come  unto  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  giveth  thee,  and  shah  possess  it,  and  shalt  dwell  therein,  and  shall  say,  I  will 
set  a  kiny  over  me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that  are  about  me  ;  thou  shalt  in  any 
wise  set  him  king  over  thee,  whom  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose  :  one  from 
amonjj  ihy  brethren  shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee :  thou  mayest  not  set  a  stranger 
over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother.' 

Difficulty. — Seeing  that  Moses  anticipated  the  desire  for  kingship^ 
and  expressed  no  strong;  feeling  as  to  its  sinfulness,  we  cannot  accuse 
the  people  of  doing  a  wrong  thing  when,  in  the  time  of  Samuel^  the 
demand  was  made. 

Explanation. — The  composition  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
is  the  subject  of  very  serious  dispute,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  at 
present  any  definite  conclusions  can  be  arrived  at.  What  is  certain  is, 
that  it  has  been  edited,  and  in  the  editing  has  received  important 
additions.  It  is  difficult  now  to  decide  what  precise  portions  came 
from  the  hand  of  Moses,  or  belong  to  the  age  of  Moses.  The  para- 
graph from  which  the  above  verses  come  may^  therefore,  be  one  of 
the  later  additions,  and  may  represent  the  wisdom  of  someone  after 


MOSAIC  PREPARATIONS.  95 

the  event,  and  an  effort  to  get  Mosaic  authority  for  the  national 
desire. 

On  the  face  of  it,  it  certainly  is  passing  strange  that  Moses  should 
establish  the  Theocracy,  and  guard  it  round  with  the  most  terrible 
sanctions,  and  at  the  same  time  prepare  for  the  time  when  the 
Theocracy  should  be  replaced  by  an  ordinary  monarchy.  To  provide 
for  the  change  was  surely  doing  a  good  deal  towards  preparing  for 
the  change ;  and  it  certainly  takes  away  something  of  the  sinfulness  of 
the  people  in  desiring  the  change.  They  might  reasonably  plead, 
that  the  time  had  come  for  doing  what  God  had  arranged  for  in  His 
plans  for  the  future  of  His  people. 

This  is  stating  the  difficulty  which  suggests  itself  to  every  thought- 
ful mind.  Let  us  see  how  that  difficulty  has  been  met  by  trustworthy 
Bible  writers. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  says :  *  Here  is  a  prophetic  provision  for  a 
contingency,  which  God,  in  His  Divine  foresight,  foreknew  would 
arise.  He  does  not  approve  the  act,  but  controls  it,  as  He  does  in 
the  case  of  divorce.'  But  this  is  'cutting  the  knot'  rather  than 
making  the  attempt  to  untie  it. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  deals  with  the  argument  that,  as  the 
Mosaic  legislation  is  not  monarchical,  Moses  is  not  likely  to  have 
prepared  for,  or  approved,  the  institution  of  monarchy ;  and  so  no 
reference  is  made  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  by  the  narrative  in 
i  Sam.  viii.-xii.,  and  as  the  prohibitions  against  the  accumulation  of 
horses,  wives,  and  treasures,  and,  indeed,  the  reference  to  horses  at 
all,  belong  to  the  age  of  Solomon,  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  must 
have  been  penned  long  after  the  date  of  Moses,  and,  indeed,  sub- 
sequently to  the  reign  of  Solomon,  and  most  probably  in  the  age  of 
Jeremiah.  Its  reply  brings  forward  some  points  of  importance.  A 
statesman  may  foresee,  and  provide  for,  what  he  cannot  personally 
approve.  This  is  not  the  only  reference  to  kings  found  in  the 
Pentateuch.  See  Gen.  xvii.  16  ;  xxxvi.  31 ;  xlix.  10  ;  Exod.  xxii.  28  ; 
Num.  xxiv.  17  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  36.  *  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
presage  of  royalty  to  come  pervades  every  part  of  the  early  annals  of 
the  people.'  For  the  full  argument,  see  Vol.  I.,  part  ii.,  pp.  863-865. 

'  The  answers  to  the  arguments  for  the  later  origin  of  this  passage, 
as  given  above,  may  be  briefly  summarized  thus  :  Moses  does  not 
provide  for  a  monarchy,  but  prophetically  recognises  a  future  demand 
for  it ;  and,  apart  from  his  own  approval,  secures  that  those  who  may 
be  called  upon  to  set  it  up  should  not  be  taken  at  unawares,  and  find 
it  difficult  to  harmonize  the  principles  of  monarchy  with  those  of  the 
Theocracy.  Moreover,  the  reference  to  kings  and  kingship  in  this 


96        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

passage  does  not  stand  alone  in  the  Pentateuch.  Also  direct  quota- 
tion from  early  books  is  not  the  manner  of  Old  Testament  writers, 
but  Samuel's  remarks  are  in  almost  verbal  harmony  with  the  passage 
in  Deuteronomy.  Samuel  does  not  clash  with  Moses  in  calling  a  sin 
what  Moses  had  permitted,  as  what  Samuel  recognises  as  sin  is  the 
spirit  of  distrust  and  impatience  manifested  by  the  people.  The 
caution  against  return  to  Egypt  is  exactly  in  the  manner  of  Moses ; 
and  the  excesses  forbidden  are  not  peculiar  to  the  later  times  of 
Jewish  monarchy,  but  characteristic  of  all  Eastern  despotisms.' 

Kitto,  explaining  the  reasons  which  induced  the  people  to  ask  for 
a  king  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  says  :  *  The  magnates  of  Israel — who 
are  the  parties  we  behold  moving  in  this  matter — may  also  have  con- 
sidered that,  although  a  form  of  government  had  been  organized  by 
Moses,  in  which  the  presence  of  a  human  king  was  not  recognised, 
he  had  clearly  contemplated  the  probability  that  a  regal  government 
might  eventually  be  adopted,  and  had  even  laid  down  certain  rules 
involving  principles  by  which  the  conduct  of  their  future  king  was 
to  be  guided.  This,  it  might  be  urged,  was  inconsistent  with  any 
absolute  interdiction  of  the  erection  of  the  state  into  a  temporary- 
monarchy  ;  and  the  time  had  now  come,  if  ever,  which  the  wise  and 
far-seeing  lawgiver  had  contemplated.' 

Note. — It  should  not  be  withheld  from  our  readers,  that  the  theory 
of  the  composite  character  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  gaining 
favour  with  our  English  exegetes.  One  of  the  latest  deliverances  on 
the  subject  is  by  Canon  Cheyne,  in  his  '  Jeremiah,  his  Life  and  Times.' 
His  conclusion  is  as  follows  :  '  It  only  remains  to  explain  the  phrase 
"  the  original  Book  of  Deuteronomy."  We  can  scarcely  claim  to 
restore  with  precision  the  very  book  which  made  such  an  impression 
on  Josiah.  It  is  undoubtedly  contained  in  the  middle  part  of  Deut- 
eronomy ;  the  only  question  is  whether  the  whole  of  this  part  belongs 
to  the  original  book.  I  think  that,  allowing  for  some  few  later  asser- 
tions and  glosses,  we  may  regard  chs.  v.-xxvi.  as  the  original  "  book  of 
(Divine)  instruction."  It  is  probable  that  chs.  i.  i — iv.  44,  and  iv.  45- 
49,  are  two  distinct  introductions,  composed  independently  by  two 
different  writers,  close  students  of  the  original  "  book  of  torah  "  in 
that  which  is  most  distinctive  of  it,  the  former  of  whom  may  perhaps 
have  had  some  really  Deuteronomic  material  to  work  upon.' 

Canon  Cook  regards  the  passage  relating  to  the  monarchy  as  one  of 
the  proofs  of  the  late  composition  of  great  parts  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy. 


THE  FIRST  SIEGE  OF  JERUSALEM.  97 


The  First  Siege  of  Jerusalem. 

JUDGES  i.  8  :  '  Now  the  children  of  Judah  had  fought  against  Jersusalem,  and 
had  taken  it,  and  smitten  it  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  set  the  ciiy  on  fire.' 

JUDGES  i.  21  :  'And  the  children  of  Benjamin  did  not  drive  out  the  lebusites 
that  inhabited  Jerusalem  ;  but  the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin 
in  Jerusalem  unto  this  day.' 

Difficulty. — Two  tribes  are  spoken  of  as  bearing  relation  to  this 
siege,  and  what  is  related  of  their  doings  appears  to  be  contradictory. 

Explanation. — In  all  probability,  the  reference  to  Benjamin  in 
verse  2 1  is  a  substitution  for  Judah.  The  nearly  identical  passage  in 
Joshua  xv.  63  reads  thus  :  *  As  for  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  the  children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  them  out :  but  the 
Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this 
day.'  Observe  the  precise  connection  in  which  these  two  verses 
stand  in  Joshua  and  in  Judges.  '  Probably  the  original  reading 
Judah  was  altered  in  later  times  to  Be?ijamin,  because  Jebus  was 
within  the  border  of  Benjamin.' 

Jerusalem  was  on  the  borders  both  of  Judah  and  of  Benjamin. 
Properly  it  belongs  to  Benjamin,  but  the  conquest  of  the  fortress  of 
Zion  by  David  naturally  caused  its  closer  identification  with  Judah. 

The  pluperfect  tense  in  verse  8  (had  fought)  is  not  represented  in 
the  original ;  and  in  the  Revised  Version  the  sentence  reads  :  '  And 
the  children  of  Judah  fought  against  Jerusalem,  and  took  it,  and 
smote  it  with  the  edge  of  the  sword.'  The  narrative  given  in  Judges 
refers,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  attacks  made  on  Jebus,  or  Jerusalem, 
in  the  time  of  Joshua.  Connecting  the  several  notices,  we  may  infer 
that  Jerusalem  was  only  taken  once,  and  that  this  was  a  success,  re- 
warding the  energy  and  enterprise  of  Judah  during  the  lifetime  of 
Joshua.  Whether  the  success  referred  on4y  to  the  city,  or  included 
also  the  fortress,  is  not  made  clear  to  us,  but  the  Jebusites  certainly 
returned  to  their  city,  and  gradually  recovered  complete  possession ; 
later  notices  indicating  that  the  people  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  lived 
on  pleasant  neighbourly  terms  with  them. 

Jerusalem  was  wholly  a  Jebusite  city  in  the  lifetime  of  Phinehas 
(Judg.  xx.  28),  and  so  it  continued  till  the  reign  of  David 
(2  Sam.  v.  6-9). 

Smith's  Biblical  Dictionary  makes  the  first  siege  to  take  place 
immediately  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  about  B.C.  1400.  It  assumes 
that  the  men  of  Judah  attacked  it,  and  later  on  the  men  of  Benjamin. 
Josephus  adds  to  our  knowledge  by  informing  us  that  the  siege  lasted 
some  time,  that  the  part  which  was  taken  at  last,  and  in  which  the 

7 


98        HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

slaughter  was  made,  was  the  lower  city ;  but  that  the  upper  city  was 
so  strong,  by  reason  of  its  walls,  and  also  of  the  nature  of  the  place, 
that  the  army  relinquished  the  attempt,  and  moved  off  to  Hebron. 

In  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools •,  the  Rev.  J.  Lias  suggests 
another  mode  of  harmonizing  the  above  verses,  but  it  is  only  a  guess, 
and  has  no  new  facts  upon  which  it  may  be  based.  He  supposes 
that  Judah  and  Simeon  took  Jerusalem,  and  set  the  city  on  fire  ;  but 
the  Jebusites  retired  into  a  citadel  from  which  their  enemies  failed  to 
dislodge  them,  and  a  later  attempt  made  by  Benjamin  also  proved 
unsuccessful.  The  consequence  of  the  Jebusites  holding  their  citadel 
was,  that  ultimately  they  succeeded  in  reoccupying  the  whole  city. 

The  Different  Accounts  of  Saul's  Death. 

1  SAMUEL  xxxi.  4  :  '  Then  said  Saul  unto  his  armour-bearer,  Draw  thy  sword, 
and  thrust  me  through  therewith  ;  lest  these  uncircumcised  come  and  thrust  me 
through,  and  abuse  me.     But  his  armour-bearer  would  not ;  for  he  was  sore  afraid. 
Therefore  Saul  took  a  sword,  and  fell  upon  it.' 

2  SAMUEL  i.  8-10:  'And  he  said  unto  me,  Who  art  thou  ?     And  I  answered 
him,  I  am  an  Amalekite.     He  said  unto  me  again,  Stand,  I  pray  thee,  upon  me, 
and  slay  me  ;  for  anguish  is  come  upon  me,  because  my  life  is  yet  whole  in  me.    So 
I  stood  upon  him,  and  slew  him,  because  I  was  sure  that  he  could  not  live  after  he 
was  fallen.' 

Difficulty. — Both  these  accounts  cannot  be  true. 

Explanation.— The  differences  may  be  accounted  for  in  two 
ways,  (i)  We  may  assume  the  Amalekite  to  have  made  up  a  tale  in 
hope  of  extorting  a  reward  from  David ;  or  (2)  we  may  think  that  the 
dishonour  of  having  been  killed  in  cold  blood  by  a  slave  was  covered 
over  by  the  invention  of  a  story  that  he  killed  himself. 

What  can  be  said  in  favour  of  each  of  these  theories  may  be  stated 
briefly.  The  story  told  by  the  Amalekite  is  certainly  natural  and 
consistent,  and  it  is  specially  worthy  of  credence,  because  he  narrates 
his  own  doings,  and  brought  with  him  the  crown,  or  head-dress,  of 
the  king,  and  his  armlet.  This  Amalekite  could  not  have  been  a 
soldier  in  Saul's  army,  and  he  is  not  likely  to  have  been  in  the 
Philistine  army.  He  was  what  we  should  call  a  '  camp-follower/  and 
came  on  the  battle-field  in  order  to  strip  the  slain  and  the  wounded. 
It  is  probable  that  Saul  had  only  swooned  after  the  injury  he  had  in- 
flicted on  himself,  though  he  was  desperately,  perhaps  mortally, 
hurt.  He  had  recovered  so  far  as  to  sit  up,  and  lean  heavily  on  his 
spear ;  looking  round  he  saw  this  man,  and  called  him  to  him,  and 
begged  to  be  put  out  of  his  misery.  The  Amalekite,  as  a  bitter 
enemy  of  Saul,  would  have  no  compunction  whatever  in  giving  him 
the  finishing  stroke,  and  might  even  think  of  his  act  as  being  a 
merciful  one.  Then  the  thought  struck  him  that  he  might  get  a 


THE  DIFFERENT  ACCOUNTS  OF  SAUL'S  DEATH.  99 

large  reward  by  carrying  his  tidings,  with  adequate  proofs  of  its 
truthfulness,  to  David.  It  should  be  noticed  that  David  does  not 
show  any  suspicion  of  its  being  a  made-up  story.  He  condemns  the 
Amalekite  from  the  point  of  view  of  his  own  sense  of  duty,  which 
could  not  apply  to  the  Amalekite.  He  had  him  put  to  death 
because  he  had  '  stretched  forth  his  hand  to  destroy  the  Lord's 
anointed.'  (See  ch.  xxvi.  9-11  ) 

The  Speaker's  Commentary,  Keil,  Lange,  Geikie,  etc.,  regard  the 
Amalekite's  story  as  an  invention  in  order  to  get  rewards  from  David. 
Josephus,  Ewald,  Stanley,  etc.,  think  the  story  is  a  true  one,  and  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  earlier  narrative. 

It  is  evident  that  the  accounts  of  the  attempted  suicide  of  Saul 
and  his  armour-bearer  can  only  have  come  by  '  hearsay.'  It  was  the 
current  explanation  of  their  deaths,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  based  on  the  authority  of  any  actual  observation  or  knowledge. 
As  the  body  of  Saul  was  carried  off  by  the  men  of  Jabesh-Gilead,  the 
nature  of  his  wounds  may  have  given  sufficient  ground  for  the  theory 
of  suicide.  Of  the  two  narratives,  that  of  the  Amalekite  seems  to 
have  the  most  satisfactory  historical  foundation. 

Both  statements  may,  however,  be  true.  Wounded  and  spent, 
Saul  may  have  tried  to  put  an  end  to  his  own  life.  He  was  mortally 
wounded,  but  he  rallied  for  a  brief  space.  Just  then  the  Amalekite 
came  up,  and  finished  the  bloody  work ;  then,  when  the  king  was 
dead,  he  '  stripped  the  royal  insignia '  from  the  lifeless  corpse,  and 
carried  the  things  to  David. 

David's  Siege  of  Jerusalem. 

2  SAMUEL  v.  6-8  (Rev.  Ver.)  :  'And  the  king  and  his  men  went  to  Jerusalem 
against  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  which  spake  unto  David,  saying, 
Except  thou  take  away  the  blind  and  the  lame,  thou  shalt  not  come  in  hither  : 
thinking,  David  cannot  come  in  hither.  Nevertheless  David  took  the  stronghold 
of  Zion  ;  the  same  is  the  city  of  David.  And  David  said  on  that  day,  Whosoever 
smiteth  the  Jebusites,  let  him  get  up  to  the  watercourse,  and  smite  the  lame  and 
the  blind,  that  are  hated  of  David's  soul.  Wherefore  they  say,  There  are  the  blind 
and  the  lame  ;  he  cannot  come  into  the  house.' — Compare  the  marginal  render- 
ings of  Rev.  Ver. 

Difficulties. — It  is  not  easy  to  understand  what  active  connection 
{ blind  and  lame '  people  could  have  had  with  a  state  of  siege  ;  nor  how 
a  fortress  on  a  hill  could  be  successfully  besieged  by  means  of  the  water- 
course. 

Explanation. — The  narrative  clearly  assumes  a  general  im- 
pression that  the  fortress  of  Jebus  was  so  impregnable  by  nature,  that 
no  human  defence  of  it  was  needed.  Accepting  this  as  the  senti- 

7—2 


ioo      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

ment,  David  in  effect  says,  '  You  trust  in  your  natural  position,  then 
that  natural  position  I  will  overcome,  and  reach  you  by  means  of  the 
watercourse  down  the  face  of  your  cliff.'  It  is  boast  against  boast. 
The  Jebusites  say,  '  The  blind  and  the  lame  will  suffice  to  keep  you 
out.'  David  says  (but  not  for  the  Jebusites  to  hear),  'Your  very 
watercourse  shall  let  me  in.'  This  is  the  general  explanation,  but  the 
passage  needs  to  be  examined  carefully  and  in  detail. 

So  far  as  the  earlier  history  of  Jerusalem  can  be  traced,  it  seems  to 
have  been  a  city,  guarded  by  a  fortress,  crowning  the  hill  afterwards 
known  as  Zion,  in  the  time  of  the  Israelite  invasion.  The  King  of 
Jerusalem  was  defeated  and  slain  by  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  23-26 ; 
xii.  10),  and  the  city  was  subsequently  taken  and  destroyed  by 
Judah  (Judg.  i.  7,  8).  These  earlier  notices  do  not  distinguish 
between  the  city  and  the  fortress,  but  as  the  Israelites  were  not  pro- 
vided with  siege  instruments,  it  seems  probable  that  they  made  no 
attempt  on  the  fortress.  So  the  existing  impression  of  its  impregna- 
bility remained  up  to  David's  time,  when  the  fortress  and  the  city 
both  seem  to  have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Jebusites.  (See 
Judg.  xix.  u,  12.) 

The  position  of  the  fortress  was  certainly  a  strong  one,  in  view  of 
the  sieaje  artillery  of  those  times.  Zion  was  the  highest  of  the  hills 
of  Jerusalem,  so  it  could  not  be  commanded  by  any  force  on  either 
of  the  others  ;  and  it  was  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  deep  valleys, 
the  sides  being  so  rugged  and  precipitous  that  only  hardy  moun- 
taineers would  attempt  to  climb  them.  It  is  clear  that  the  Jebusites 
were  so  over-confident  in  their  position,  that  they  could  venture  to 
taunt  their  enemy  in  the  usual  extravagant  Eastern  style.  Roberts, 
writing  on  Goliath's  taunting  of  David,  says  :  '  The  rodomontade  of 
Goliath  is  still  the  favourite  way  of  terrifying  an  enemy.  "  Begone, 
or  I  will  give  thy  flesh  to  the  jackals  !"  "  The  crows  shall  soon 
have  thy  carcase."  "  Yes,  the  teeth  of  the  dogs  shall  soon  have 
hold  of  thee."  "  The  eagles  are  ready." '  The  expression  in  verse  6 
is  a  taunt  of  this  kind.  '  In  foolhardy  confidence  the  Jebusite  chiefs 
even  dared  David  to  attack  the  stronghold,  boasting  that  the  blind 
and  the  lame  were  enough  to  keep  him  out  of  a  place  so  strong.' 
There  is  no  need  to  assume  that  any  '  blind  and  lame  '  were  actually 
there  :  the  expression  is  in  the  figurative  style  so  familiar  to  the 
Easterns. 

The  rendering  of  verse  6  given  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary  is 
suggestive.  '  And  (the  Jebusite)  spake  to  David,  saying,  Thou  shalt 
not  come  hither,  but  the  blind  and  the  lame  shall  keep  thee  off.' 
'The  verb  "  keep  off"  is  not  in  the  infinitive,  as  some  say,  but  in  the 


DA  VID'S  SIEGE  VFJERVti^LRM.r^  101 

perfect,  in  the  singular  number,  preceding,  as  it  does,  the  subject, 
"  There  shall  keep  thee  off  the  lame  and  the  blind."  ' 

Different  explanations  are  given  of  the  way  in  which  David  pro- 
posed to  take  the  fortress.  In  the  A.V.  we  read  (verse  8),  *  Whoso- 
ever getteth  up  the  gutter.'  The  word  'gutter'  is  only  used  here 
and  in  Ps.  xlii.  7,  where  it  is  rendered  'waterspouts,'  or  ' waterpipes.' 
But  what  the  waterspout  or  watercourse  was,  it  is  not  possible  to 
discover.  Lord  Arthur  Heruey  says :  '  The  only  access  to  the 
citadel  was  where  the  water  had  worn  a  channel  (some  understand  a 
subterranean  channel),  and  where  there  was,  in  consequence,  some 
vegetation  in  the  rock.'  Wordsworth  proposes  to  correct  the  transla- 
tion of  the  sentence,  and  read,  '  Whosoever  smiteth  the  Jebusites,  let 
him  cast  down  into  the  gutter  the  lame  and  the  blind,  hated  by 
David's  soul.'  In  this  he  is  supported  by  Ewald,  Bochart,  and  Keil. 
Ellicotfs  Commentary  approves  of  this  rendering,  but  improves  upon 
it  by  reading,  '  Whosoever  smites  the  Jebusites,  let  him  hurl  into  the 
watercourses  (that  is,  down  the  precipice)  the  lame  and  the  blind.' 
David  simply  takes  up  and  uses  the  expression  of  the  taunt.  He 
does  not  mean  actually  lame  and  blind  persons,  but  the  persons, 
whoever  they  might  be,  who  were  set  to  defend  the  fortress.  Geikie.^ 
in  a  footnote,  says :  '  A  great  shaft  from  the  hill  of  Jerusalem  to  a 
covered  aqueduct  leading  from  the  fountain  of  the  Virgin  has  been 
thought  by  some  to  be  meant.  It  is  supposed  that  Joab  and  his 
men  reached  this  shaft  by  wading  along  the  subterranean  aqueduct ; 
and  having  ascended  it,  burst  on  the  townsmen,  when  least  expected, 
inside  the  town  itself.'  It  seems  agreed  that  a  storming  party  must 
have  been  formed,  and  of  its  doings  Joab,  as  the  leader,  obtained  the 
chief  credit. 

Hiram's  Contract  with  Solomon. 

I  KINGS  v.  9  :  '  My  servants  shall  bring  them  down  from  Lebanon  unto  the 
sea  ;  and  I  will  convey  them  by  sea  in  floats  unto  the  place  that  thou  shalt  appoint 
me,  and  will  cause  them  to  be  discharged  there,  and  thou  shalt  receive  them  :  and 
thou  shalt  accomplish  my  desire,  in  giving  food  for  my  household.' 

Question. —  What  points  of  interest  attach  to  this  contract  ? 

Answer. — They  are  chiefly  connected  with  the  difficult  work  of 
conveying  large  trees,  such  as  cedars,  from  Lebanon  to  Jerusalem. 
The  details  are  given  by  Archdeacon  Farrar.  '  Hiram,  as  we  learn 
from  a  fragment  of  Menander  of  Ephesus,  preserved  in  Josephus,  was 
the  son  of  a  king  named  Abibaal,  and  had  ascended  the  throne  in 
early  youth  in  B.C.  1001.  He  was  in  the  eleventh  year  of  his  reign 
when  Solomon,  who  had  now  been  king  for  three  years,  entered  into 


102      HA.NBBdQg  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

close  relations  with  him.  His  alliance  was  of  the  utmost  importance 
for  the  future  commerce  of  Israel,  and  alone  rendered  possible  the 
splendid  buildings  which  now  began  to  adorn  Jerusalem.  He 
reigned  thirty-four  years,  and  died  at  the  age  of  fifty-three.  Solomon, 
welcoming  the  proffered  friendship  of  the  Tyrian  king,  begged  him 
to  allow  his  skilled  workmen  to  hew  cedar-trees  and  cypress-trees  out 
of  Lebanon,  and  Hiram  in  return  for  annual  gifts  of  twenty  thousand 
cors  of  wheat  and  barley,  and  twenty  thousand  "  baths  "  of  oil,  gave 
him  large  assistance.  The  labour  involved  was  immense.  The  trees 
were  sent  down  the  heights  of  Lebanon  by  the  process  technically 
known  as  schlittage,  and  thence  by  road  or  river  to  the  seashore. 
(Schlittage  is  still  much  used  in  the  Vosges  to  carry  trees  downhill. 
They  are  pushed  along  an  artificial  path  called  vovtou,  made  of 
rounded  trunks.)  Huge  rafts  of  the  costly  timber  were  thence 
floated  by  sea  to  Joppa,  a  hundred  miles,  and  then,  with  infinite  toil, 
were  dragged  about  thirty-five  miles  up  the  steep  and  rocky  roads  to 
Jerusalem.  These  works  required  a  levy,  or  "  tribute  of  men,"  out  of 
all  Israel,  to  the  number  of  thirty  thousand,  who  worked  in  relays  of 
ten  thousand  for  three  months,  of  which  one  month  was  spent  at 
Lebanon,  and  two  at  home.  Adoniram  was  at  the  head  of  this  army 
of  soccage  labourers,  who  are  not  called  bondmen,  though  such  they 
practically  were.' 

Van  Lennep  says  :  '  In  Solomon's  day  the  servants  of  King  Hiram 
cut  the  cedars  of  Lebanon,  and,  making  them  into  rafts,  floated  them 
to  Joppa,  the  port  appointed  by  the  Jewish  king.  In  the  same 
manner,  the  timber  which  grows  abundantly  on  the  northern  coast  of 
Asia  Minor  is  cut  down  by  the  Sultan's  servants,  made  into  rafts  at 
Sinope,  and  other  ports  on  the  Black  Sea,  and  conveyed  to  the 
capital,  for  the  supply  of  the  imperial  navy  yard,  and  for  house- 
building.' 

Burder  speaks  of  c  two  modes  of  conveying  wood  in  floats.  The 
first,  by  pushing  single  trunks  of  trees  into  the  water,  and  suffering 
them  to  be  carried  along  by  the  stream ;  this  was  commonly  adopted 
as  regarded  firewood.  The  other  was  ranging  a  number  of  planks 
close  to  each  other  in  regular  order,  binding  them  together,  and 
steering  them  down  the  current.  The  earliest  ships  or  boats  were 
nothing  else  than  rafts,  or  a  collection  of  deals  and  planks  bound 
together.  By  the  Greeks  they  were  called  schedai,  and  by  the  Latins 
rates: 

'  The  Phoenician  cities  had  very  little  arable  territory  of  their  own  ; 
cereals  and  oil  were  largely  derived  from  Judaea.  So  Hiram  agreed 
to  accept  for  his  timber,  and  for  the  services  of  his  workmen,  a 


THE  IDENTIFICA  TION  OF  ARA  UNAH.          103 

certian  annual  payment  of  grain  and  oil,  both  of  them  the  best  of 
their  kind,  for  the  sustentation  of  his  court.  Herodotus  tells  us  that, 
in  a  similar  way,  the  Persian  monarchs  received  from  the  subject 
nations  a  tribute  in  kind,  which  was  applied  in  the  same  way.  The 
supply  for  the  court  was  distinct  from  the  feeding  of  the  work-people 
employed  in  cutting  the  trees.' 

The  Identification  of  Araunah. 

2  SAMUEL  xxiv.  16 :  *  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  was  by  the  threshing-place  of 
Araunah  the  Jebusite.' 

Question. — Can  any  information  be  obtained  as  to  the  person, 
standing^  and  relations  of  this  man,  who  is  so  casually  introduced  into 
the  narrative  ? 

Answer. — All  we  can  actually  know  about  him  is  the  account  of 
his  negotiation  with  David,  as  recorded  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  20-25,  an(^ 
i  Chron.  xxi.  18-27.  There  is  a  suggestive  sentence  in  the  A.V.  of 
i  Sam.  xxiv.  23,  '  All  these  things  did  Araunah,  as  a  king  give  unto  a 
king,'  which  may  indicate  that  Araunah  was  a  former  King  of 
Jerusalem  ;  but  the  sentence  is  a  doubtful  translation.  The  Rev.  Ver. 
renders  the  sentence  thus  :  *  All  this,  O  king,  doth  Araunah  give 
unto  the  king.'  The  corresponding  clause  in  Chronicles  reads  : 
'  And  Oman  said  unto  David,  Take  it  to  thee,  and  let  my  lord  the 
king  do  that  which  is  good  in  his  eyes.' 

We  can  only  say  that  the  negotiation  seems  conducted  on  terms 
of  equality,  but  perhaps  we  should  see  in  it  no  more  than  the 
characteristic  Eastern  politeness  in  bargaining.  The  fact  that 
Araunah  had  property  in  that  situation  certainly  suggests  that  he 
must  have  been  one  of  the  old  Jebusite  princes  ;  but  his  name  gives 
us  no  hint  of  his  earlier  associations.  Oman  seems  to  be  the  Hebrew 
form  of  the  name,  and  Araunah  (or  Avarnah,  Aranyah,  Aravnah)  the 
Jebusite  form.  How  he  came  to  be  permitted  to  retain  his  property 
during  David's  reign  is  not  explained.  It  is  only  clear  that  he  had 
given  his  allegiance  to  David,  and  he  may  have  become  a  proselyte 
to  Mosaism. 

The  conjectures  as  to  the  previous  standing  of  Araunah,  which, 
we  have  shown  above,  are  based  on  an  incorrect  rendering  of  a  text, 
are  very  beautifully  given  by  Dean  Stanley,  and  are  sufficiently 
reasonable,  though  proof  of  their  truth  is  not  forthcoming.  '  Imme- 
diately outside  the  eastern  walls  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  was  a  spot 
well  known  as  belonging  to  a  wealthy  chief  of  the  conquered  race  of 
Jebus ;  one  who,  according  to  tradition,  was  spared  by  David  from 


io4     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

old  friendship,  perhaps  contracted  in  his  wanderings,  at  the  time  of 
the  capture  of  the  city,  who,  according  to  the  probable  interpretation 
of  the  sacred  text,  had  been  the  king  of  the  ancient  Jebus.  (Note  on 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  23  ;  in  the  original  the  expression  is  much  stronger  than 
in  the  A.V. — "  Araunah  the  king.")  On  his  property  was  a  thresh- 
ing-floor, beside  a  rocky  cave  where  he  and  his  sons  were  engaged  in 
threshing  the  corn  gathered  in  from  the  harvest.  Beside  the  rocky 
threshing-floor  the  two  princes  met — the  fallen  king  of  the  ancient 
fortress,  the  new  king  of  the  restored  capital,  each  moved  alike  by 
the  misfortunes  of  a  city  which  in  different  senses  belonged  to  each. 
Araunah,  with  his  four  sons,  had  hid  himself  in  the  cave  which  ad- 
joined the  threshing-floor,  and  crept  out  with  a  profound  obeisance 
as  he  saw  the  conqueror  of  his  race  approach.  The  Jewish  king 
asked  of  his  heathen  predecessor  the  site  of  the  threshing-floor  ;  the 
Jebusite  king  gave  with  a  liberality  equal  to  the  generosity  with  which 
David  insisted  in  paying  the  price  for  it.  It  was  the  meeting  of  two 
ages.  Araunah,  as  he  yields  that  spot,  is  the  last  of  the  Canaanites, 
the  last  of  that  stern  old  race  that  we  discern  in  any  individual  form 
and  character.  David,  as  he  raises  that  altar,  is  the  close  harbinger 
of  the  reign  of  Solomon,  the  founder  of  a  new  institution  which 
another  was  to  complete.' 

There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  between  the  amounts  paid  to 
Araunah,  as  given  in  the  older  and  the  later  histories.  In  2  Sam. 
xxiv.  22-24,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  negotiation  was  strictly  for  the 
materials  of  sacrifice.  What  Araunah  offered  was  not  the  estate,  but 
distinctly  c  the  oxen  for  burnt  sacrifice,  and  threshing  instruments  and 
other  instruments  of  the  oxen  for  wood.'  The  fifty  shekels  of  silver 
would  be  an  adequate  price  for  these  materials  of  sacrifice,  but  we 
cannot  imagine  it  to  be  a  suitable  price  to  pay  for  a  man's  estate. 
The  word  'threshing-floor,'  in  verse  24,  should  plainly  be  rendered 
'threshing  instruments,'  as  in  verse  22. 

The  record  given  by  the  later  author,  in  i  Chron.  xxi.  25,  includes 
the  entire  negotiation,  and  supplements  the  earlier  account.  What 
appears  to  have  been  the  fact  is,  that  in  usual  Eastern  fashion  the 
negotiation  was  prolonged.  Araunah  did  not  want  to  part  with  his 
property,  and  tried  to  limit  the  sale  to  the  oxen  and  to  the  threshing 
instruments.  For  these  a  price  was  at  last  fixed,  and  then  David 
persisted  in  purchasing  the  threshing-floor,  and  at  last  600  shekels 
of  gold  were  fixed  as  the  price  to  be  given  for  the  place.  Whether 
this  included  the  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  or  was  extra  to  it,  does  not 
clearly  appear ;  but  the  renewed  negotiation  may  have  been  settled 
by  fixing  the  600  gold  shekels  as  the  all-inclusive  price,  We  have, 


THE  IDENTIFICATION  OF  SHISHAK.  105 

hen,  in  Samuel  a  true  account  of  the  negotiation  up  to  a  certain 
>oint,  and  in  Chronicles  a  record  of  the  completion  of  the  negotia- 
ion. 

When  we  realize  how  large  the  area  was  which  David  purchased, 
he  600  gold  shekels  was  only  a  fitting  price  ;  fifty  shekels  of  silver 
ould  not  have  been  the  agreed  price  for  many  acres  of  valuable 
ind. 

The  Identification  of  Shishak. 

I  KINGS  xiv.  25  :  '  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fifth  year  of  Rehoboam,  that 
ihishak  king  of  Egypt  came  up  against  Jerusalem.' 

Question.—  What  accounts  of  this  king,  and  of  his  expedition,  are 

0  be  found  in  the  Egyptian  annals  ? 

Answer. — Up  to  the  time  of  this  king,  Scripture  speaks  only  in 
.  general  way  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  day.  Shishak  is  the  first 
Jharaoh  whose  name  is  given.  The  Hebrew  name  'Shishak'  repre- 
ents  almost  exactly  the  Egyptian  name,  ordinarily  written  '  Shes- 
ieuk,'  or  'Sheshonk,'  or  'Sheshek,'  and,  by  Manetho,  '  Sesonchis.' 
Wholly  absent  from  all  the  earlier  monuments,  it  appears  suddenly 

1  those  of  the  twenty-second  (Bubastite)  dynasty,  where  it  is  borne 
•y  no  less  than  four  monarchs,  besides  occurring  also  among  the 
ames  of  private  individuals.     This  abundance  would  be  somewhat 
uzzling,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  one  only  of  the  four  monarchs 
>  a  warrior,   or  leads  any  expedition  beyond  the    borders.      The 
ecords  of  the  time  leave  no  doubt  that  the  prince  who  received 
eroboam  was  Sheshonk  L,  the  founder  of  the  Bubastite  line,  the 
on  of  Namrot  and  Tentespeh,  the  first  king  of  the  twenty-second 
y  nasty.' 

'  The  Palestinian  expedition  of  Sheshonk  I.  forms  the  subject  of  a 
^markable  bas-relief,  which,  on  his  return  from  it,  he  caused  to  be 
xecuted  in  commemoration  of  its  complete  success.  Selecting  the 
reat  Temple  of  Karnak,  at  Thebes,  which  Seti  I.  and  Rameses  II. 
ad  already  adorned  profusely  with  representations  of  their  victories, 
e  built  against  its  southern  external  wall  a  fresh  portico  or  colon- 
ade,  known  to  Egyptologists  as  the  "  portico  of  the  Bubastites,"  and 
arved  upon  the  wall  itself,  to  the  east  of  his  portico,  a  memorial  of 
is  grand  campaign.  First,  he  represented  himself  in  his  war 
ostume,  holding  by  the  hair  of  their  heads,  with  his  left  hand, 
lirty-eight  captive  Asiatic  chiefs,  and  with  an  iron  mace  uplifted  in 
is  right  threatening  them  with  destruction.  Further,  he  caused 
imself  to  be  figured  a  second  time,  and  represented  in  the  act  of 
,'ading  captive  a  hundred  and  thirty-three  cities  or  tribes,  each  speci- 


io6      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

fied  by  name,  and  personified  in  an  individual  form,  accompanied  by 
a  cartouche  containing  their  respective  names.  In  the  physiognomies 
of  these  ideal  figures  the  critical  acumen  or  lively  imagination  of  a 
French  historian  sees  rendered  "with  marvellous  ethnographic  cor- 
rectness "  the  Jewish  type  of  countenance ;  but  less  gifted  travellers 
do  not  find  anything  very  peculiar  in  the  profiles,  which,  whether 
representing  Jews  or  Arabs,  are  almost  exactly  alike.' 

The  above  extracts  are  taken  from  Professor  Rawlinson's  earlier 
book ;  in  his  later  a  description  of  the  Shishak  invasion  is  given. 
'  Sober  students  of  history  will  regard  Shishak  (Sheshonk)  simply  as  a 
member  of  a  family  which,  though  of  foreign  extraction,  had  been 
long  settled  in  Egypt,  and  had  worked  its  way  into  a  high  position 
under  the  priest-kings  of  Herhor's  line,  retaining  a  special  connection 
with  Bubastis,  the  place  which  it  had  from  the  first  made  its  home. 
Sheshonk's  grandfather,  who  bore  the  same  name,  had  had  the 
honour  of  intermarrying  into  the  royal  house,  having  taken  to  wife 
Meht-en-hont,  a  princess  of  the  blood,  whose  exact  parentage  is  un- 
known to  us.  His  father,  Namrut,  had  held  a  high  military  office, 
being  commander  of  the  Libyan  mercenaries,  who  at  this  time 
formed  the  most  important  part  of  the  standing  army.  Sheshonk 
himself,  thus  descended,  was  naturally  in  the  front  rank  of  Egyptian 
court  officials.  ...  In  monarchies  like  the  Egyptian  it  is  not  very 
difficult  for  an  ambitious  subject,  occupying  a  certain  position,  to 
seize  the  throne  ;  but  it  is  far  from  easy  for  him  to  retain  it.  Unless 
there  is  a  general  impression  of  the  usurper's  activity,  energy,  and 
vigour,  his  authority  is  liable  to  be  soon  disputed,  or  even  set  at 
nought.  It  behoves  him  to  give  indications  of  strength  and  breadth 
of  character,  or  of  a  wise,  far-seeing  policy,  in  order  to  deter  rivals 
from  attempting  to  undermine  his  power.  Sheshonk  early  let  it  be 
seen  that  he  possessed  both  caution  and  far-reaching  views  by  his 
treatment  of  a  refugee  who,  shortly  after  his  accession,  sought  his 
court.  This  was  Jeroboam,  one  of  the  highest  officials  in  the  neigh- 
bouring kingdom  of  Israel.  ...  At  the  time  of  Solomon's  demise, 
Jeroboam  was  allowed  to  return  to  Palestine,  and  to  foment  the  dis- 
content which  it  was  foreseen  would  terminate  in  separation.  The 
two  kings  had,  no  doubt,  laid  their  plans.  Jeroboam  was  first  to  see 
what  he  could  effect  unaided,  and  then,  if  difficulty  supervened,  his 
powerful  ally  was  to  come  to  his  assistance.  For  the  Egyptian 
monarch  to  have  appeared  in  the  first  instance  would  have  roused 
Hebrew  patriotism  against  him.  Sheshonk  waited  till  Jeroboam 
had,  to  a  certain  extent,  established  his  kingdom,  had  set  up  a  new 
worship,  blending  Hebrew  with  Egyptian  notions,  and  had  suffi- 


THE  IDENTIFICATION  OF  SHISHAK.  107 

•.iently  tested  the  affection  or  disaffection  towards  his  rule  of  the 
rarious  classes  of  his  subjects.  He  then  marched  out  to  his  assist- 
ince.  Levying  a  force  of  1,200  chariots,  60,000  horse  (query  6,000), 
ind  footmen  "  without  number  "  (2  Chron.  xii.  3),  chiefly  from  the 
Libyan  and  Ethiopian  mercenaries,  which  now  formed  the  strength 
)f  the  Egyptian  armies,  he  proceeded  into  the  Holy  Land,  entering 
t  in  "three  columns,"  and  so  spreading  his  troops  far  and  wide  over 
he  southern  country.  Rehoboam,  Solomon's  son  and  successor, 
lad  made  such  preparation  as  was  possible  against  the  attack.  He 
lad  anticipated  it  from  the  moment  of  Jeroboam's  return,  and  he 
lad  carefully  guarded  the  main  routes  whereby  his  country  could  be 
ipproached  from  the  south,  fortifying,  among  other  cities,  Shoco, 
\dullam,  Azekah,  Gath,  Mareshah,  Ziph,  Tekoa  and  Hebron 
'2  Chron.  xi.  6-10).  But  the  host  of  Sheshonk  was  irresistible. 
Mever  before  had  the  Hebrews  met  in  battle  the  forces  of  their 
southern  neighbour — never  before  had  they  been  confronted  with 
luge  masses  of  disciplined  troops,  armed  and  trained  alike,  and 
soldiers  by  profession.  The  Jewish  levies  were  a  rude  and  untaught 
militia,  little  accustomed  to  warfare,  or  even  to  the  use  of  arms,  after 
:~orty  years  of  peace,  during  which  "every  man  had  dwelt  safely  under 
:he  shade  of  his  own  vine  and  his  own  fig-tree  "  (i  Kings  iv.  25). 
They  must  have  trembled  before  the  chariots,  and  cavalry,  and 
:rained  footmen  of  Egypt.  Accordingly,  there  seems  to  have  been 
10  battle,  and  no  regularly-organized  resistance.  As  the  host  of 
Sheshonk  advanced  along  the  chief  roads  that  led  to  the  Jewish 
capital,  the  cities,  fortified  with  so  much  care  by  Rehoboam,  either 
Dpened  their  gates  to  him,  or  fell  after  brief  sieges  (2  Chron.  xii.  4). 
Sheshonk's  march  was  a  triumphal  progress,  and  in  an  incredibly 
short  space  of  time  he  appeared  before  Jerusalem,  where  Rehoboam 
and  the  princes  of  Judah  were  tremblingly  awaiting  his  arrival.  The 
son  of  Solomon  surrendered  at  discretion,  and  the  Egyptian 
conqueror  entered  the  Holy  City,  stripped  the  Temple  of  its  most 
valuable  treasures,  includirg  the  shields  of  gold  which  Solomon  had 
made  for  his  bodyguard,  andt  plundered  the  royal  palace  (2  Chron. 
xii.  9).  The  city  generally  does  not  appear  to  have  been  sacked,  nor 
was  there  any  massacre.  Rehoboam's  submission  was  accepted ;  he 
was  maintained  in  his  kingdom,  but  he  had  to  become  Sheshonk's 
"servant"  (2  Chron.  xii.  8),  that  is,  he  had  to  accept  the  position  of 
a  tributary  prince,  owing  fealty  and  obedience  to  the  Egyptian 
monarch.' 

'  Sheshonk  did  not  live  many  years  to  enjoy  the  glory  and  honour 
brought  him  by  his  Asiatic  successes.     He  died  after  a  reign  of 


io8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

twenty-one  years,  leaving  his  crown  to  his  second  son,  Osorkon,  who 
was  married  to  the  Princess  Keramat,  a  daughter  of  Sheshonk's 
predecessor.' 

Forty  Years  or  Four  ? 

2  SAMUEL  xv.  7  :  '  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  forty  years,  that  Absalom 
said  unto  the  king,  I  pray  thee,  let  me  go  and  pay  my  vow,  which  I  have  vowed 
unto  the  Lord,  in  Hebron.' 

Difficulty. — Forty  years  cannot  possibly  have  passed  between 
Absalom's  restoration  to  the  kings  favour,  and  the  beginning  of  his 
rebellion. 

Explanation. — There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  reading  '  forty  ' 
is  incorrect.  But  it  is  the  reading  of  almost  all  our  hitherto  collated 
Hebrew  manuscripts.  Those  who  maintain  the  genuineness  of  the 
reading  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  explain  that  the  forty  years 
should  be  dated  from  the  unction  of  David  by  Samuel.  But  even 
this  would  be  incorrect,  seeing  that  David  only  reigned  forty  years  ; 
and,  as  Absalom  was  born  after  David  began  his  reign  in  Hebron, 
he  could  not  have  been  forty  years  old  when  David  died.  Nor  can 
it  be  said  that  the  rebellion  of  Absalom  took  place  in  David's  fortieth 
year. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  the  reading  should  be  '  forty 
days,'  instead  of  '  forty  years.'  But  to  this  two  objections  may  be 
urged:  (i)  Absalom  was  two  years  in  Jerusalem  before  he  was  fully 
restored  to  the  king's  favour.  (See  ch.  xiv.  28.)  (2)  Forty  days 
was  not  a  sufficient  time  in  which  to  alienate  the  affections  of  the 
people  from  David. 

The  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Sixtine  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  read  '  four 
years.'  This  is  certainly  the  correct  reading ;  and  it  is  accepted  by 
Josephus,  Theodoret,  Keil,  Bishop  Cotton,  etc.  Dr.  Boothroyd  gives 
the  varied  reading  of  '  four  years,'  and  observes  :  '  The  common  text 
is  manifestly  erroneous,  David  reigned  only  forty  years,  and  if  we 
follow  the  text  the  rebellion  of  Absalom  would  occur  long  after  David 
was  dead.'  The  Revised  Version  gives,  as  a  marginal  note,  '  ac- 
cording to  some  ancient  authorities,  four.' 

But  it  is  not  possible  to  decide  from  what  point  in  Absalom's 
history  these  '  four  years '  are  to  be  reckoned.  They  may  include  the 
two  years  after  his  return  from  Geshur  in  which  he  was  banished 
from  the  palace ;  or  they  may  date  from  the  time  of  his  restoration 
to  the  king's  favour.  This,  on  the  whole,  appears  to  be  most 
probable.  Four  years  is  not  too  long  a  period  in  which  to  prepare 
the  way  for  his  rebellion  by  his  arts  and  flatteries. 


ASSYRIAN  LOCATION  OF  CAPTIVE  ISRAEL.     109 

Errors  in  numbers  should  not  greatly  surprise  us.  There  must 
dways  have  been  some  uncertainty  in  the  text  of  books  when  they 
vere  copied  by  hand.  And  a  mistake  once  made  would  be  repeated, 
hrough  the  very  care  the  copyists  exercised.  The  uncertainty  ap- 
)lied  in  a  very  marked  way  to  numbers,  because,  in  the  Hebrew, 
lumbers  are  expressed,  not  by  special  figures  as  with  us,  but  by  the 
)rdinary  letters  of  the  alphabet,  and  these  are,  sometimes,  so  nearly 
ike  each  other,  that  a  turn  of  the  pen,  or  a  heedlessly  added  dot,  or 
lash,  will  change  one  number  into  another.  A  few  of  the  Hebrew 
etters,  with  their  numerical  values  may  be  given,  from  which  it  will 
)lainly  appear  how  the  slips  of  copyists  may  change  numbers  :  ^, 
Beth,  2  ;  3,  Kaph,  20 ;  D>  Samekh,  60  ;  ^,  Daleth,  4 ;  J-|,  He,  5  ; 
-|,  Cheth,  8 ;  1,  Resh,  200 ;  ]-|,  Tau,  400  ;  \  Vau,  6  ;  f,  Zayin,  7  ; 
»,  Yodth,  10  ;  3,  Nun,  50.  In  any  of  these  instances,  a  slight  care- 
essness,  or  confusion,  or  slip  of  the  pen,  would  alter  the  value  of  the 
etter,  and  the  mistake  might  easily  escape  the  notice  of  a  person 
•vhen  correcting  the  copy. 


The  Assyrian   Location  of  Captive  Israel. 

2  KINGS  xvii.  6  :  'In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea  the  king  of  Assyria  took 
Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into  Assyria,  and  placed  them  in  Halah  and  in 
rlabor,  by  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes.' 

Question. — How  many  separate  districts  are  indicated  by  these 
'erms,  and  where  were  they  situated  ? 

Answer. — It  is  necessary  first  to  explain,  that  carrying  away 
copulations  from  conquered  countries,  and  captured  cities,  was  a 
)art  of  the  policy  introduced  by  Tiglath-pileser  II.,  the  founder  of 
:he  second  Assyrian  Empire.  'The  first  empire  was  at  best  a 
oosely-connected  military  organization  ;  campaigns  were  made  into 
listant  countries  for  the  sake  of  plunder  and  tribute,  but  little  effort 
,vas  made  to  retain  the  districts  that  had  been  conquered.'  '  Tiglath 
:onsolidated  and  organized  the  conquests  he  made ;  turbulent  popu- 
ations  were  deported  from  their  old  homes,  and  the  empire  was 
divided  into  satrapies  or  provinces.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  conceive 
:>f  the  removal  of  entire  populations.  We  are  oppressed  as  we  think 
}f  the  hardships  such  removals  involved.  But  it  was  a  much  simpler 
;hing  in  ancient  times  than  we  can  now  conceive.  A  living  was  more 
easily  gained,  and  men's  daily  wants  were  strictly  limited.' 

Sargon  gives  his  own  account  of  this  deportation  :  *  I  besieged 
:he  city  of  Samaria,  and  took  it.  I  carried  off  27,280  of  the 
citizens;  I  chose  fifty  chariots  for  myself  from  the  whole  number 


no      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

taken  ;  all  the  other  property  of  the  people  of  the  town  I  left  for  my 
servants  to  take.  I  appointed  resident  officers  over  them,  and  im- 
posed on  them  the  same  tribute  as  had  formerly  been  paid.  In  the 
place  of  those  taken  into  captivity  I  sent  thither  inhabitants  of  lands 
conquered  by  me,  and  imposed  the  tribute  on  them  which  I  require 
from  Assyrians.'  Another  part  of  Sargon's  annals  reads  thus : 
'Having  overcome  the  King  of  Babylon  I  carried  away  —  of  the 
inhabitants,  with  their  goods,  and  settled  them  in  the  land  of  the 
Chatti,'  that  is,  in  Syro  Israel.  On  a  cylinder  is  this  inscription: 
'Sargon,  who  subdued  the  people  of  Thammud — an  Arab  race  of 
Arabia  Petraea — of  Ibadid,  Marsiman,  and  Chayapu,  after  slaying 
many,  carried  off  the  rest  to  the  distant  land  of  the  House  cf  Omri ' 
(Samaria).  In  the  annals  of  Sargon's  seventh  year,  we  read :  '  I 
subdued  the  inhabitants  of  Tasid,  Ibadid,  Marsiman,  Chayapu,  the 
people  of  distant  Arba,  the  dwellers  in  the  land  of  Bari,  which  even 
the  learned  have  not  known,  and  which  had  never  brought  their 
tribute  to  the  king,  my  father,  and  transplanted  the  survivors  and 
settled  them  in  the  city  of  Samaria.' 

By  Halah  we  are  to  understand  a  district  on  the  upper  course  of 
the  river  Khabour  in  North-western  Mesopotamia,  the  region  ap- 
parently being  known  as  'Gozan.'  By  the  'cities  of  the  Medes'  we 
may  understand  the  wild  highland  region  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Tigris,  north  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  According  to  this  explanation, 
only  two  districts  are  referred  to  in  the  text,  Halah  or  Gozan  on  the 
Khabour,  and  the  '  cities  (or  mountains)  of  the  Medes.' 

Ewald  says  :  '  The  Book  of  Kings  specifies  Halah,  Habor,  the 
river  Gozan,  and  the  cities  of  Media,  as  the  localities  to  which  the 
exiles  were  consigned.  The  two  first  of  these  names  indicate  places 
north  of  Nineveh,  and  south  of  the  lake  of  Van  ;  the  river  Gozan, 
still  known  by  the  name  Ozen,  rises  south  of  the  lake  of  Ourmia, 
and  forms  approximately  the  northern  boundary  of  Media,  which  is 
mentioned  with  it.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary,  noticing  the  connection  of  Halah,  both 
here  and  in  i  Chron.  v.  26,  with  Gozan  and  the  Habor,  says  it  shows, 
almost  beyond  a  doubt,  that  it  is  the  tract  which  Ptolemy  calls 
Chalcitis.  and  which  he  places  on  the  borders  of  Gauzanitis  (Gozan). 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Chaboras,  or  Khabour.  In  this  region  is  a  re 
markable  mound  called  Gla,  which  probably  marks  the  site,  anc 
represents  the  name,  of  the  city  Chalach,  whence  the  district  Chal 
citis  was  so  called.  The  Habor  is  the  great  affluent  of  the  Euphrates. 
the  western  Khabour.  This  stream,  which  is  often  mentioned  in  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  under  the  same  name,  is  pre-eminently  '  th( 


THE  ARK  OF  GOD   WITH  SAULS  ARMY.        in 

iver  of  Gozan  '  (Gauzanitis),  all  the  waters  of  which  it  collects  and 
onducts  to  the  Euphrates.  Gozan  is  mentioned,  not  only  in  three 
>assages  in  combination  with  Halah  and  the  Habor  (comp. 
:  Kings  xviii.  n,  and  i  Chron.  v.  26),  but  also  in  a  fourth  in  com- 
bination with  Haran  (2  Kings  xix.  12).  Its  identity  with  Gauzanitis 
allows  almost  necessarily  from  the  fact  that  in  this  region  only  are 
.11  the  four  names  combined. 

The  Ark  of  God  with  Saul's  Army. 

I  SAMUEL  xiv.  18  :  '  And  Saul  said  unto  Ahijah,  Bring  hither  the  ark  of  God. 
ror  the  ark  of  God  was  there  at  that  time  with  the  children  of  Israel.' 

Difficulty. — As  we  have  no  indication  of  the  ark  having  left 
Kirjath-jearim  until  David  removed  it,  can  this  reference  to  the  ark  be 
•orrect  ? 

Explanation.— So  far  as  the  history  of  the  ark  can  be  traced 
)y  the  help  of  Scripture  references,  it  was  during  the  judgeship  of 
Samuel  that  the  men  of  Kirjath-jearim  fetched  up  the  ark  from  the 
:ountry  of  the  Philistines  (i  Sam.  vii.  i).  Then  it  was  lodged  in  the 
louse  of  Abinadab,  who  resided  in  Gibeah,  that  is,  in  the  hill.  It 
vas  from  this  house  David  fetched  it  (2  Sam.  vi.  3) ;  but  in  conse- 
quence of  the  death  of  Uzzah,  who  touched  it  against  the  Divine  rule, 
David  rested  it  for  some  months  in  the  house  of  Obed-Edom,  the 
Pittite.  There  is  no  trace  whatever  of  Saul's  showing  any  interest  in 
;he  ark,  or  making  the  slightest  attempt  at  securing  its  restoration. 

The  question  to  be  decided  concerns  the  correctness  of  the  word 
irk  in  this  verse.  In  favour  of  retaining  it  is  the  fact,  that  it  is  found 
n  all  extant  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  also  in  the  Vulgate,  Syriac, 
md  Chaldee  Targums.  And  on  the  face  of  it,  there  is  no  impos- 
sibility involved  in  the  idea  that  Saul  had  the  ark  brought  for  the 
>ccasion  from  Kirjath-jearim. 

But  the  arguments  against  the  correctness  of  the  term  are  over- 
whelming. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  ephod,  not  ark,  is  the 
proper  term.  The  Septuagint  Version  reads  :  '  And  Saul  said  to 
\hijah,  Bring  hither  the  ephod ;  for  he  bore  the  ephod  in  those  days 
Defore  the  children  of  Israel.'  Josephus  reports  the  incident  in  this 
vay :  '  He  bid  the  priest  take  the  garments  of  his  priesthood,  and 
prophesy,'  etc. 

We  should  carefully  notice,  that  Saul  did  not  want  the  presence  of 
:he  ark  in  the  same  sense,  and  for  the  same  purpose,  as  the  Israelites 
iid,  in  the  time  of  Eli,  when  they  sent  for  it  into  the  battlefield. 
Saul  wanted  it  as  a  means  of  inquiring  of  God  as  to  the  way  in  which 


ii2      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

he  should  act  in  a  pressing  emergency.  'Should  he — seeing  the 
panic  that  was  evidently  increasing  in  the  Philistine  camp,  and 
knowing  nothing  of  the  cause,  only  that  his  son  and  the  armour- 
bearer  were  missing — should  he  risk  his  little  force,  and,  leaving  his 
strong  position,  attack  that  great  host  of  apparently  panic  stricken 
enemies  ?' 

But  if  Saul  meant  to  inquire  of  God,  the  ark  was  not  the  proper 
thing  to  send  for.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  ark  ever  being  used  as 
the  medium  of  inquiries.  The  proper  thing  was  to  send  for  the 
high  priest,  requesting  him  to  put  on  the  ephod,  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  in  it ;  and,  in  some  mysterious  way  which  has  not  been 
revealed  to  us,  the  Divine  answer  was  given,  and  the  Divine  will  was 
revealed,  through  some  change  in  that  Urim  and  Thummim. 

It  has  also  been  pointed  out,  that  the  expression  *  Bring  hither ' 
is  never  applied  to  the  ark,  and  it  could  not  properly  be  applied  to 
that  most  sacred  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence.  No  king  could 
possibly  have  authority  to  order  about,  at  his  own  will,  the  ark  of 
God.  He  might  command  the  attendance  of  the  high  priest,  in 
order  to  make  inquiries,  through  him,  concerning  the  Divine  will. 
This  expression,  *  Bring  hither,'  is  used  in  connection  with  the  ephod, 
(See  i  Sam.  xxiii.  9.)  '  David  said  to  Abiathar  the  priest,  Bring 
hither  the  ephod,'  and,  through  it,  David  made  definite  inquiry  of 
God.  Another  precisely  similar  instance  will  be  found  in  i  Sam. 
xxx.  7. 

It  only  need  be  added,  that  Saul  required  an  immediate  decision, 
and  this  he  could  get  from  the  priest,  who  was  always  close  at  hand ; 
but  this  he  could  not  have  obtained  if  the  ark  had  to  be  fetched 
from  Kirjath-jearim.  Stanley  is  right  in  saying  that  the  reading  of 
ark  for  ephod  is  an  *  obvious  mistake.' 

Hilkiah  Js  Book  of  the  Law. 

2  KINGS  xxii.  8  :  'And  Hilkiah,  the  high  priest,  said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe, 
I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.' 

Question. — Can  the  work  discovered  by  Hilkiah  be  identified  with 
any  degree  of  certainty  ? 

Answer. — There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Books  of 
Moses  are  referred  to  ;  but  there  is  dispute  as  to  whether  we  are  to 
understand  the  Five  Books  comprising  the  Pentateuch ;  portions 
containing  only  the  judgments  of  the  law ;  or  only  the  summary,  or 
the  primary  portions  of  the  summary,  now  known  as  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  ( The  discussion  of  the  origin  and  contents  of  Deu- 


HILKIAH' S  BOOK  OF  THE  LAW.  113 

teronomy  is  not  required  for  the  elucidation  of  this  particular  ques- 
tion, but  will  be  found  treated  elsewhere.) 

Dr.    C.   Geikie    gives   an    explanatory   account   of    the    incident. 
'  Eighteen  years  had  passed  since  Josiah's  accession,  though  he  was 
still  only  a  young  man  of  twenty-six.     The  whole  country  had  been 
cleared  of  its  high  places,  and  other  heathen   or  superstitious  dis- 
figurements, and  the  Temple  was  rapidly  being  repaired  and  restored 
to  its  ancient  uses,  under  a  commission,  consisting  of  Hilkiah,  the 
high  priest ;  Shaphan,  the  king's  secretary,  or  minister  of  finance  ; 
Maaseiah,  the  Sar,  or  governor  of  Jerusalem,  and  Joah,  the  king's 
mazkir,  or  keeper  of  the  State  archives.     While  engaged  in  their 
duties,  Hilkiah  came  upon  a  manuscript  roll,  which  proved  to  be  a 
copy  of  "  The  Book  of  the  Torah,  or  Law,  of  Jehovah,  by  the  hand 
of  Moses  "  (Heb.  of  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14  ;  comp.  2  Kings  xxii.  8).     In 
what  part  of  the  Temple  it  was  found  is  not  stated,  but  the  discovery 
took   place    when   the   commissioners   were    removing   the   money 
gathered  to  repair  the  Temple,  from  the  chests  in  which  it  had  been 
stored,  which  may  mark  either  when  the  book  was  found,  or  the 
place  where  it  was  discovered.     In  the  days  of  Christ  it  was  believed 
that  the  king  had  sent  Hilkiah  to  get  what  money  remained,  after 
the  restoration  of  the  Temple,  to  melt  into  cups,  dishes,  etc.,  for  the 
sacred  ministrations,  and  that  while  he  was  bringing  it  out,  he  lighted 
upon  "  the  Holy  Books  of  Moses."   The  Rabbinical  tradition  is,  that 
14  the  Book  "  was  found  beneath  a  heap  of  stones,  under  which  it  had 
been  hidden  when  they  burned  the  other  copies  of  the  Law.     It  may 
be,  however,  that  it  had  lain  hid  in  the  ark  itself,  which  Manasseh 
had  thrown  aside  into  some  of  the  many  cells,  or  chambers,  round 
the  Temple,  where  it  might  easily  have  remained  unnoticed  till  the 
searching  eagerness  of  the  commission  discovered  it.     Hitherto  the 
king  had  acted  only  from  the  traditional  knowledge  of  the  old  reli- 
gion, preserved  by  the  godly  through  the  dark  times  of  Manasseh 
and  Amon ;  but  the  written  Law  was  now  in  his  hands.     That  its 
earlier  existence  was  well  known  is  shown  by  its  instant  recognition 
as  "  The  Book  of  the  Law."     Nor  is  it  possible  that  Josiah  himself, 
and  those  around  him,  should  have  received  it  as  the  ancient  sacred 
book  of  the  nation,  had  no  such  book  formerly  existed.' 

That  there  was  a  copy  of  the  Law  specially  preserved  beside  the 
ark,  within  the  Holy  of  Holies,  is  evident  from  the  passage,  Deut. 
xxxi.  25,  26  :  '  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put 
it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that 
it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee.'  But  the  actual  contents 

8 


ii4      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

of  this  '  Book  of  the  Law  '  are  not  given,  and  we  cannot  tell  whether 
it  included  the  historical  portions,  or  was  strictly  limited  to  the 
original  legislative  sections. 

Whatever  this  Temple-copy  of  the  Law  contained,  the  importance 
attached  by  all  parties  to  the  discovery  of  Hilkiah  certainly  suggests 
that  it  was  this  particular  copy,  specially  sacred  because  of  its  asso- 
ciations, which  was  now  recovered. 

Dr.  Lumby  gives  the  preceding  historical  associations,  which  enable 
us  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the  discovery.  '  Josiah  had  suc- 
ceeded his  father  at  the  age  of  eight,  and  in  the  previous  fifty-seven 
years  the  kingdom  hid  twice  over  been  deluged  with  all  the  abomina- 
tions of  idolatry.  The  greater  proportion,  therefore,  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  would  have  had  little  chance  of  knowing  the  Law  and 
its  requirements.  The  Temple  had  been  neglected,  perhaps  closed, 
during  a  large  part  of  these  years.  If  we  may  judge  of  what  would 
be  needed  now  by  what  had  been  found  necessary  in  Hezekiah's 
time  (2  Chron.  xxix.  5-7),  the  holy  place  would  have  become  foul  with 
neglect,  the  doors  shut  up,  the  lamps  unlit,  no  incense  within,  no 
sacrifice  without,  the  building.  As  for  the  Book  of  the  Law,  whatever 
might  have  been  the  contents  of  it  at  this  time,  rolls  containing  it 
would  certainly  not  be  numerous.  In  the  possession  of  the  priests 
they  might  be  expected  to  be  found,  but  only  here  and  there.  The 
copy  made  (according  to  the  Law)  for  the  use  of  the  king  would 
most  certainly  have  perished.  We  must  lay  aside,  in  thinking  of  this 
time,  all  our  modern  conceptions  about  books  and  about  a  number 
of  copies.  The  priests,  in  the  matter  of  services  and  sacrifices  in  the 
Temple,  taught  the  people  by  word  of  mouth  what  was  proper  in 
every  part  of  the  ceremonial,  and  much  of  the  priestly  training  was 
traditional,  passed  on  from  one  generation  of  priests  to  another. 
That  an  authoritative  copy  of  the  law,  whatever  it  may  have  com- 
prised, would  be  supplied  for  preservation  in  the  Temple  we  certainly 
might  expect ;  but  after  nearly  sixty  years  of  neglect  of  the  Temple 
and  its  services,  we  can  feel  little  surprised  that  neither  Hilkiah  nor . 
his  fellows  were  aware  of  its  existence,  and  that  Josiah  knew  con- 
cerning it  only  what  had  been  taught  him  by  the  priests.  The  half- 
century  previous  to  Josiah's  accession  had  been  a  period  of  utter 
darkness,  both  for  people,  priests,  and  king.  .  .  .  Neither  Hilkiah 
nor  Shaphan  are  surprised  at  what  has  been  found.  The  high  priest 
describes  it  to  Shaphan  by  a  form  of  words  which  must  have  had  a 
definite  meaning  before  he  used  them.  That  is,  there  was  known 
among  the  priests,  and  to  some  degree,  no  doubt,  among  the  people, 
a  collection  of  precepts  which  were  called  by  the  name  of  "  the  Book 


HILKIAH'S  BOOK  OF  THE  LA  W. 


IJ5 


of  the  Law."  Therefore  the  "  finding  "  mentioned  in  this  verse  was 
not  a  discovery  of  something  unknown  before,  but  the  rescuing  of  the 
Temple-copy  of  the  Law  from  the  hiding-place  in  which  it  had  long 
lain  (perhaps  in  one  of  the  chambers  round  about  the  Temple). 
Hilkiah  knows  what  it  is  which  he  has  come  upon  :  the  scribe  with 
professional  instinct  begins  to  peruse  it.  Neither  of  them  shows  any 
ignorance  or  any  surprise  at  the  sight  or  perusal.' 

The  discussion  of  the  probable  contents  of  the  book  is  reviewed 
and  summarized  by  Canon  Cheyne,  in  his  recent  work  on  'Jeremiah.' 
Referring  to  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  he  says :  f  At  present  we  must 
accompany  him  to  his  royal  master,  and  watch  the  effect  of  the 
tidings  which  he  bears  from  the  Temple,  where  a  discovery  has  just 
been  made  by  Hilkiah  the  priest.  It  is  a  book  which  has  been  found 
containing  directions  on  religious  and  moral  points  which  cut  at  the 
root  of  many  popular  customs  and  practices.  The  name  which 
Hilkiah  gives  to  it  is,  "The  Book  of  Torah  "  (i.e.,  of  Divine  direc- 
tion or  instruction) ;  the  narrator  himself  calls  it  "  The  Covenant 
Book"  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2).  The  chronicler,  however,  gives  it  a  fuller 
title,  "The  Book  of  Jehovah's  Torah  given  by  Moses"  (2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  14),  which  probably  expresses  the  meaning  of  the  earlier 
narrator.  For  certainly  it  was  as  a  Mosaic  production  that  the 
"  Book  of  Torah  "  effected  such  a  rapid  success,  though  not  (even 
according  to  the  compiler  of  Kings)  the  whole  of  what  is  now  called 
the  Pentateuch.  There  can  be  no  longer  any  doubt  that  the  book 
found  in  the  Temple  was  substantially  the  same  as  our  Book  of  Deu- 
teronomy. Does  the  narrative  in  Kings  describe  the  book  as  the 
Book  of  Torah,  and  its  stipulations  collectively  as  "  the  Covenant "  ? 
(2  Kings  xxii.  8  ;  xxiii.  3).  These  are  also  phrases  of  the  expanded 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  (Deut.  xxix.  i,  21  ;  xxx.  10;  xxxi.  26,  etc.). 
Do  the  king  and  the  people  pledge  themselves  "to  walk  after 
Jehovah,  and  to  keep  His  commandments  and  His  precepts  and  His 
statutes  with  all  their  heart,  and  with  all  their  soul,  performing  the 
words  of  this  covenant  that  are  written  in  this  book  "?  (2  Kings  xxiii.  3). 
The  same  phrases  occur  over  and  over  again  in  Deuteronomy.  (See 
Deut.  iv.  13;  vi.  5;  viii.  6,  n;  x.  12,  13;  xxix.  9.)  Does  Josiah 
devote  himself  to  the  suppression  of  the  local  sanctuaries  and  the 
centralization  of  worship  ?  This  is  also  one  of  the  principal  aims  of 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.' 

Canon  Cheyne  quotes  together  the  following  passages,  Deut.  vi.  4,  5 ; 
xii.  2-6;  xvi.  21,  22;  xviii.  9-15  ;  xxviii.  15-21,  and  says  of  them  : 
'  Such  is  the  only  setting  in  which  a  Biblical  scholar  is  permitted  to 
place  the  kernel  at  least  of  Deuteronomy  (if  the  somewhat  misleading 

8—2 


n6      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

name  is  still  to  be  used),  but  not  more  than  this,  for  the  fifth  of  the 
so-called  "  Books  of  Moses  "  has  most  certainly  grown  like  the  other 
four.  It  is  too  soon  to  inquire  what  this  "  kernel  "  was  ;  too  soon  to 
set  forth  the  probable  origin  of  this  earliest  part  of  the  book.' 

In  the  face  of  searching  modern  criticism  we  may  still  keep  the 
older  explanation  of  Hilkiah's  discovery.  '  The  thorough  search 
which  was  made  in  the  Temple,  for  the  removal  of  every  relic  of 
idolatry  or  superstition,  which  former  kings  had  introduced,  brought 
to  light  the  autograph  copy  of  the  Law  written  by  Moses ;  and,  in 
opening  it,  the  eye  fell  upon  the  passage,  Deut.  xxviii.  15-68,  de- 
claring the  doom  of  the  nation  if  it  fell  into  idolatry.'  (Kitto.) 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  meets  the  objection  that  a  fraud  was 
arranged  to  serve  the  purposes  of  the  priesthood,  and  after  showing 
how  certainly  a  fraud  would  have  been  detected,  adds  :  '  On  the 
whole,  it  may  be  said  that  fraud  or  mistake  might  as  easily  have 
imposed  a  new  "  Bible "  on  the  Christian  world  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  as  a  new  "law"  on  the  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.' 

Kirjath-Sepher,    the  Book   Town. 

JOSHUA  xv.  16  :  'And  Caleb  said,  He  that  smiteth  Kirjath-sepher,  and  taketh  it, 
to  him  will  I  give  Achsah  my  daughter  to  wife.' 

Question. — As  this  name  means  '  Book  Town,'  may  ive  infer  that 
the  Canaanites  were  sufficiently  civilized  to  have  public  libraries  ? 

Answer. — Up  to  recent  times,  it  could  only  be  conjectured 
from  this  name  that  this  town  was  an  ancient  seat  of  learning.  Dr. 
Wright  and  Professor  Sayce  have  now  brought  to  light  information  of 
an  extremely  interesting  character,  which  fully  supports  what  was 
previously  only  a  conjecture.  Writing  of  the  times  of  Rameses  II., 
Sayce  says  :  '  It  is  clear  that  already  at  this  period  the  Hittites  were  a 
literary  people.  The  Egyptian  records  make  mention  of  a  certain 
Khilip-sira,  whose  name  is  compounded  with  that  of  Khilip  or  Aleppo, 
and  describe  him  as  "  a  writer  of  books  of  the  vile  Kheta."  Like  the 
Egyptian  Pharaoh,  the  Hittite  monarch  was  accompanied  to  battle 
by  his  scribes.  If  Kirjath-sepher,  or  "  Book  Town,"  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Hebron,  was  of  Hittite  origin,  the  Hittites  would  have 
possessed  libraries  like  the  Assyrians,  which  may  yet  be  dug  up. 
Kirjath-sepher  was  also  called  "Debir,"  the  "Sanctuary,"  and  we 
may,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  library  was  stored  in  its  chief  temple, 
as  were  the  libraries  of  Babylonia.  There  was  another  Debir  or 
Dapur  further  north,  in  the  vicinity  of  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes,  which 
is  mentioned  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  ;  and  since  this  was  in  the 


KIRJATH-SEPHER,   THE  BOOK  TOWN.          117 

land  of  the  Amorites,  while  Kirjath-sepher  is  also  described  as  an 
Amorite  town,  it  is  possible  that  here,  too,  the  relics  of  an  ancient 
library  may  yet  be  found.  We  must  not  forget  that  in  the  days  of 
Deborah,  "  out  of  Zebulon,"  northward  of  Megiddo,  came  "  they  that 
handle  the  pen  of  the  writer."  '  (Judg.  v.  14.) 

After  giving  an  historical  description  of  what  has  become  known  in 
regard  to  the  conquest  of  Amenophis  III.,  as  shown  by  the  archives 
of  his  palace,  Professor  Sayce  says,  of  the  tablets  and  inscriptions : 
*  From  them  we  learn  that,  in  the  fifteenth  century  before  our  era — a 
century  before  the  Exodus — active  literary  intercourse  was  going  on 
throughout  the  civilized  world  of  Western  Asia,  between  Babylon  and 
Egypt  and  the  smaller  states  of  Palestine,  of  Syria,  of  Mesopotamia, 
and  even  of  Eastern  Kappadokia.  And  this  intercourse  was  carried 
on  by  means  of  the  Babylonian  language,  and  the  complicated  Baby- 
lonian script.  This  implies  that  all  over  the  civilized  East  there  were 
libraries,  and  schools  where  the  Babylonian  language  and  literature 
were  taught  and  learned.  Babylonian  appeared  to  have  been  as  much 
the  language  of  diplomacy  and  cultivated  society  as  French  has  become 
in  modern  times,  with  the  difference  that,  whereas  it  does  not  take 
long  to  learn  French,  the  cuneiform  syllabary  required  years  of  hard 
labour  and  attention  before  it  could  be  acquired.  We  can  now 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  name  of  the  Canaanitish  city  which 
stood  near  Hebron,  and  which  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  most 
important  of  the  towns  of  Southern  Palestine.  Kirjath-sepher,  or 
"  Book  Town,"  must  have  been  the  seat  of  a  famous  library,  consist- 
ing mainly,  if  not  altogether,  as  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  inform  us, 
of  clay  tablets  inscribed  with  cuneiform  characters.  The  literary 
influence  of  Babylonia  in  the  age  before  the  Israelitish  conquest  of 
Palestine  explains  the  occurrence  of  the  names  of  Babylonian  deities 
among  the  inhabitants  of  the  West.  Moses  died  on  the  summit  of 
Mount  Nebo,  which  received  its  name  from  the  Babylonian  god  of 
literature,  to  whom  the  great  temple  of  Borsippa  was  dedicated ;  and 
Sinai  itself,  the  mountain  of  "  Sin,"  testifies  to  a  worship  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Moon-god,  Sin,  amid  the  solitudes  of  the  desert.  Moloch,  or 
Malik,  was  a  Babylonian  divinity  like  Rimmon,  the  Air-god,  after  whom 
more  than  one  locality  in  Palestine  was  named  ;  and  Anat,  the  wife 
of  Anu,  the  Sky-god,  gave  her  name  to  the  Palestinian  Anah,  as  well 
as  to  Anathoth,  the  city  of  the  "  Anat-goddesses." '  In  a  careful 
reading  of  the  tablets,  Professor  Sayce  came  upon  many  ancient 
names  and  incidents  known  up  to  the  present  only  from  their  appear- 
ance in  the  Bible. 

Some  account  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  libraries  may  help  us  to 


n8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

realize  the  provision  made  in  the  temple  of  this  Canaanitish  town, 
Kirjath-sepher.  '  A  literary  people '  like  the  Babylonians  needed 
libraries,  and  libraries  were  accordingly  established  at  a  very  early 
period  in  all  the  great  cities  of  the  country,  and  plentifully  stocked 
with  books  in  papyrus  and  clay.  In  imitation  of  these  Babylonian 
libraries,  libraries  were  also  founded  in  Assyria  by  the  Assyrian 
kings.  There  was  a  library  at  Assur,  and  another  at  Calah,  which 
seems  to  have  been  as  old  as  the  city  itself.  But  the  chief  library  of 
Assyria,  that,  in  fact,  from  which  most  of  the  Assyrian  literature  we 
possess  has  come,  was  the  great  library  of  Nineveh  (Kouyunjik). 
This  owed  its  magnitude  and  reputation  to  Assur-bani-pal,  who  filled 
it  with  copies  of  the  plundered  books  of  Babylonia.  A  whole  army 
of  scribes  was  employed  in  it,  busily  engaged  in  writing  and  editing 
old  texts.  Assur-bani-pal  is  never  weary  of  telling  us,  in  the  colophon 
at  the  end  of  the  last  tablet  of  a  series  which  made  up  a  single  work, 
that  '  Nebo  and  Tasmit  had  given  him  broad  ears  and  enlightened 
his  eyes  so  as  to  see  the  engraved  characters  of  the  written  tablets, 
whereof  none  of  the  kings  that  had  gone  before  had  seen  this  text,  the 
wisdom  of  Nebo,  all  the  literature  of  the  library  that  exists,'  so  that 
he  had  '  written,  engraved,  and  explained  it  on  tablets,  and  placed  it 
within  his  palace  for  the  inspection  of  readers.'  All  the  branches  of 
knowledge  known  at  the  time  were  treated  of  in  Assyrian  literature, 
though  naturally  history,  legend,  and  poetry  occupied  a  prominent 
place  in  it.  But  even  such  subjects  as  the  despatches  of  generals  in 
the  field,  or  the  copies  of  royal  correspondence  found  a  place  in  the 
public  library.  The  chronology  of  Assyria,  and,  therewith,  of  the 
Old  Testament  also,  has  been  restored  by  means  of  the  lists  of 
successive  '  eponyms,'  or  officers  after  whom  the  years  were  named, 
while  a  recent  discovery  has  brought  to  light  a  table  of  Semitic 
Babylonian  kings,  arranged  in  dynasties,  wnich  traces  them  back  to 
B.C.  2330. 

Jeroboam's  Two  Calves. 

I  KINGS  xii.  28,  29  :  *  Whereupon  the  king  took  counsel,  and  made  two  calves 
of  gold,  and  he  said  unto  them,  It  is  too  much  for  you  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  ; 
behold  thy  gods,  O  Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And 
he  set  the  one  in  Bethel,  and  the  other  put  he  in  Dan.' 

Difficulty. — There  was  no  precedent  for  making  two  calves. 
Whence  did  Jeroboam  get  the  idea,  and  what  object  did  he  propose  to 
himself! 

Explanation. — Jeroboam  had  become  familiar,  while  exiled  in 
Egypt,  with  the  worship  of  the  sacred  ox  Apis,  and  the  calf  Mnevis, 


JEROBOAMS  TWO  CALVES.  119 

and  all  over  Western  Asia,  including  the  heathen  parts  of  Palestine, 
the  ox  was  the  favourite  symbol  of  Baal.  The  young  bull  was  the 
symbol  of  creative  power. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  religious  object  was  in  view  in  making 
two  calves.  If  visible  representatives  of  God  are  once  admitted,  the 
multiplication  of  them  is  only  a  matter  of  convenience.  Jeroboam 
was  wholly  swayed  by  considerations  affecting  the  establishment  of 
his  new  kingdom,  and  he  was  not  checked  by  any  religious  con- 
siderations. He  would  have  made  ten  gods  as  readily  as  two,  if  he 
had  thought  that  ten  would  serve  his  state  purposes.  The  one  set  up 
at  Dan  was,  perhaps,  to  be  the  great  religious  centre,  but,  as  Bethel 
was  a  recognised  holy  place,  the  calf  there  seems  to  have  received  the 
greatest  attention,  though  Jeroboam  may  only  have  meant  it  to  keep 
the  southern  section  of  his  people  from  going  to  Jerusalem  to 
worship.  And  with  the  calf  at  Bethel  there  came  to  be  connected  a 
new  temple,  '  known  for  centuries  as  the  royal  and  national  sanctuary, 
a  rival  of  the  great  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  with  a  distinct  priesthood, 
ritual,  and  festivals,  and  all  the  pomp  of  the  religious  centre  of  the 
kingdom.' 

There  was  no  actual  intention  to  cast  off  Jehovah — these  calves 
were  but  to  represent  Him — but  the  fact  that  there  were  two  tended 
to  destroy  the  primary  conception  of  the  Divine  Unity,  as  the 
material  figure  tended  to  destroy  the  other  primary  conception  of  the 
Divine  Spirituality. 

Canon  Rawlinson  suggests  that  these  '  calves  of  gold  '  were  repre- 
sentations of  the  cherubic  form,  imitations,  more  or  less  close,  of  the 
two  cherubim  which  guarded  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies.  As,  however,  they  were  unauthorized  copies,  set  up  in 
places  which  God  had  not  chosen,  and  without  any  Divine  sanction, 
the  sacred  writers  call  them  '  calves.'  We  may  gather  from  this  that 
they  were  not  mere  human  figures  with  wings,  but  had,  at  any  rate, 
the  head  of  a  calf  or  ox.  Jeroboam,  in  setting  them  up,  was 
probably  not  so  much  influenced  by  anything  that  he  had  seen  in 
Egypt,  as  ( i )  by  a  conviction  that  the  Israelites  could  not  be  brought 
to  attach  themselves  to  any  worship  which  did  not  present  them  with 
sensible  objects  to  venerate  ;  (2)  by  the  circumstance  that  he  did  not 
possess  any  of  the  old  objects  of  reverence  which  had  been  concen- 
trated at  Jerusalem  ;  and  (3)  by  the  fact  that  he  could  plead  for  his 
*  calves  '  the  authority  of  so  great  a  name  as  Aaron. 


120      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  Resting-Place  of  Noah's  Ark. 

GENESIS  viii.  4  :  '  And  the  ark  rested  in  the  seventh  month,  on  the  seventeenth 
day  of  the  month,  upon  the  mountains  of  Ararat.' 

Difficulty. — Mount  Ararat  is  almost  inaccessible.  It  is  inconceiv- 
able that  the  women  and  animals  climbed  down  from  its  summit. 

Explanation. — The  expression  'mountains  of  Ararat'  suggests 
some  part  of  the  range  known  by  that  name,  and  not  necessarily  the 
highest  part.  In  its  love  for  the  extraordinary,  tradition  has  fixed  the 
site  as  one  of  the  two  highest  peaks,  the  Aghri-dagh,  and  the  Kara- 
dagh,  which  are  more  than  10,000  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea. 
We  may  more  wisely  assume  that  it  rested  on  one  of  the  lower  ridges, 
and  that  when  the  mists  cleared,  Noah  found  himself  surrounded  by 
an  amphitheatre  of  mountains. 

'  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  and  the  Syriac  translate  "  on  the  moun- 
tains of  Carduchia."  This  range,  which  separates  Armenia  from 
Kurdistan,  is  regarded  by  many  authorities  as  the  hills  really  meant, 
because,  as  they  are  nearer  the  place  whence  the  ark  started,  the 
difficulty  regarding  the  course  taken  by  it  is  not  so  insuperable.' 

'Ararat  is  the  name  of  a  territory  (2  Kings  xix.  37)  which  is 
mentioned  (Jer.  li.  27)  as  a  kingdom  near  to  Mirmi  (Armenia) — 
probably  the  middle  province  of  the  Armenian  territory,  which 
Moses  of  Chorene  calls  Arairad,  Araratia.  The  mountains  of  Ararat 
are,  doubtless,  the  mountain-group  which  rises  from  the  plain  of  the 
Araxes  in  two  high  peaks,  the  Great  Ararat,  16,254  feet,  and  the 
Lesser,  about  12,000  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  This  landing- 
place  of  the  ark  is  of  the  highest  significance  for  the  development  of 
humanity,  as  it  is  to  be  renewed  after  the  flood.  Armenia,  the 
fountain-land  of  the  Paradise  rivers,  a  "  cool,  airy,  well-watered, 
insular  mountain-tract,"  as  it  has  been  called,  lies  in  the  middle  of 
the  old  continent.  And  so,  in  a  special  manner,  does  the  mountain 
of  Ararat  lie  nearly  in  the  middle,  not  only  of  the  Great  African- 
Asiatic  desert-tract,  but  also  of  the  inland,  or  Mediterranean  waters, 
extending  from  Gibraltar  to  the  Sea  of  Baikal — at  the  same  time 
occupying  the  middle  point  in  the  longest  line  of  extension  of  the 
Caucasian  race,  and  of  the  Indo-Germanic  lines  of  language  and 
mythology  ;  whilst  it  is  also  the  middle  point  of  the  greatest  reach  of 
land  in  the  old  world  as  measured  from  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  to 
Behring's  Straits — in  fact,  the  most  peculiar  point  on  the  globe,  from 
whose  heights  the  lines  and  tribes  of  people,  as  they  went  forth  from 
the  sons  of  Noah,  might  spread  themselves  to  all  the  regions  of  the 
earth. 


CYRUS  NO  MONOTHEIST.  121 

*  The  Koran  has  wrongly  placed  the  landing-place  of  Noah  on  the 
\\\\\Judhi,  in  the  Kurd  mountain  tract,  but  this  VGt&Judhi  may  only 
be  an  epithet,  meaning  the  Hill  of  Mercy.  The  Samaritan  Version 
locates  it  on  the  mountains  of  Ceylon ;  the  Sybilline  books  in 
Phrygia,  in  the  native  district  of  Marsyas.  The  Hindoo  story  of  the 
Flood  names  the  Himalaya,  the  Greek  Parnassus,  as  the  landing- 
place  of  the  delivered  ancestor.' — (Lange.} 

It  is  evident  that  no  exact  information  can  be  obtained,  and  that 
we  are  left  to  form  reasonable  conjectures. 

Cyrus  no  Monotheist. 

EZRA  i.  1  :  '  Now  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  that  the  word  of  the 
Lord  by  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah  might  be  fulfilled,  the  Lord  stirred  up  the  spirit  of 
Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  that  he  made  a  proclamation  throughout  all  his  kingdom, 
and  put  it  also  in  writing.' 

Question. —  What  corrections  of  previous  notions  concerning  Cyrus 
have  come  to  us  through  recently-discovered  documents  ? 

Answer. — It  may  be  well  to  notice  first  the  commonly-received 
notions  concerning  Cyrus,  that  we  may  value,  by  comparison,  the 
recent  information  that  has  been  obtained.  Dean  Stanley  calls  this 
hero  '  Cyrus,  or  Koresh,  or  Khosroo,  the  King  of  the  Persians.  The 
day  of  Persian  glory  which  he  ushered  in,  the  empire  which  he 
founded,  for  that  brief  time,  embraced  all  that  there  was  of  civilization 
from  the  Himalayas  to  the  ^Egean  Sea.  ...  Of  all  the  great  nations 
of  Central  Asia,  Persia  alone  is  of  the  same  stock  as  Greece  and 
Rome  and  Germany.  .  .  .  Cyrus  belongs  to  the  only  nation  in  the 
then  state  of  the  world  which,  in  any  sense  at  all  approaching  the 
Israelite,  acknowledged  the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  The  religion  of 
the  Persians  was,  of  all  the  Gentile  forms  of  faith,  the  most  simple 
and  the  most  spiritual.  Their  abhorrence  of  idols  was  pushed  almost 
to  fanaticism.  "  They  have  no  images  of  the  gods,  no  temples,  no 
altars,  and  consider  the  use  of  them  a  sign  of  folly."  This  was 
Herodotus's  account  of  the  Persians  of  his  own  day,  and  it  is  fully 
borne  out  by  what  we  know  of  their  religion  and  of  their  history.' 

Professor  Sayce  tell  us  that  '  the  history  of  the  downfall  of  the 
great  Babylonian  Empire,  and  of  the  causes,  humanly  speaking, 
which  brought  about  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  has  recently  been 
revealed  to  us  by  the  progress  of  Assyrian  discovery.  We  now 
possess  the  account,  given  by  Cyrus  himself,  of  the  overthrow  of 
Nabonidos,  the  Babylonian  king,  and  of  the  conqueror's  permission 
to  the  captives  in  Babylonia  to  return  to  their  homes.  The  account 
is  contained  in  two  documents,  written,  like  most  other  Assyrian  and 


122      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Babylonian  records,  upon  clay,  and  lately  brought  from  Babylonia  to 
England  by  Mr.  Rassam.  One  of  these  documents  is  a  tablet  which 
chronicles  the  events  of  each  year  in  the  reign  of  Nabonidos,  the  last 
Babylonian  monarch,  and  continues  the  history  into  the  first  year  of 
Cyrus,  as  King  of  Babylon.  The  other  is  a  cylinder,  on  which 
Cyrus  glorifies  himself  and  his  son  Kambyses,  and  professes  his 
adherence  to  the  worship  of  Bel  Merodach,  the  patron  god  of 
Babylon.' 

In  these  inscriptions  Cyrus  does  not  call  himself  and  his  ancestors 
kings  of  Persia,  but  of  Elam.  The  word  used  is  Anzan,  or  Ansan, 
which  an  old  Babylonian  geographical  tablet  explains  as  the  native 
name  of  the  country  which  the  Assyrians  and  Hebrews  called  Elam. 
This  statement  is  verified  by  early  inscriptions  found  at  Susa  and 
other  places  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  belonging  to  the  ancient 
monarchs  of  Elam,  who  contended  on  equal  terms  with  Babylonia 
and  Assyria  until  they  were  at  last  conquered  by  the  Assyrian  king, 
Assur-bani-pal,  and  their  country  made  an  Assyrian  province.  In 
these  inscriptions  they  take  the  imperial  title  of  '  King  of  Anzan.' 

The  annalistic  tablet  lets  us  see  when  Cyrus  first  became  King  of 
Persia.  In  the  sixth  year  of  Nabonidos  (B.C.  549)  Cyrus  is  still  King 
of  Elam ;  in  the  ninth  year  he  has  become  King  of  Persia.  Between 
these  two  years,  therefore,  he  must  have  gained  possession  of  Persia, 
either  by  conquest,  or  in  some  peaceable  way.  When  he  overthrew 
Astyages,  his  rule  did  not  as  yet  extend  so  far.  At  the  same  time 
Cyrus  must  have  been  of  Persian  descent,  since  he  traces  his  ancestry 
back  to  Teispes,  whom  Darius,  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  in  his  great 
inscription  on  the  sacred  rock  of  Behistun,  claims  as  his  own  fore- 
father. 

That  Cyrus  was  an  Elamite,  however,  is  not  the  only  startling 
revelation  which  the  newly- discovered  inscriptions  have  made  to  us. 
We  learn  from  them  that  he  was  a  polytheist  who  worshipped  Bel 
Merodach  and  Nebo,  and  paid  public  homage  to  the  deities  of 
Babylon.  We  have  learnt  a  similar  fact  in  regard  to  his  son 
Kambyses  from  the  Egyptian  monuments.  These  have  shown  us 
that  the  account  of  the  murder  of  the  sacred  bull  Apis  by  Kambyses, 
given  by  Herodotus,  is  a  fiction ;  a  tablet  accompanying  the  huge 
granite  sarcophagus  of  the  very  bull  he  was  supposed  to  have 
wounded  has  been  found  with  the  image  of  Kambyses  sculptured 
upon  it,  kneeling  before  the  Egyptian  god.  The  belief  that  Cyrus 
was  a  monotheist  grew  out  of  the  belief  that  he  was  a  Persian,  and, 
like  other  Persians,  a  follower  of  the  Zoroastrian  faith  ;  there  is 
nothing  in  Scripture  to  warrant  it.  Cyrus  was  God's  shepherd  only 


CYRUS  NO  MONOTHEIST.  123 

ecause  he  was  His  chosen  instrument  in  bringing  about  the  restora- 
on  of  Israel ;  it  is  expressly  said  of  him,  '  1  girded  thee,  though 
lou  hast  not  known  Me  '  (Isaiah  xlv.  5). 

Experience  had  taught  Cyrus  the  danger  of  allowing  a  disaffected 
aople  to  live  in  the  country  of  their  conquerors.  He  therefore  re- 
used the  old  policy  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings,  which 
insisted  in  transporting  the  larger  portion  of  a  conquered  population 
)  another  country,  and  sought  instead  to  win  their  gratitude  and 
Section  by  allowing  them  to  return  to  their  native  lands.  He  saw, 
loreover,  that  the  Jews,  if  restored  from  exile,  would  not  only  pro- 
:ct  the  south-west  corner  of  his  empire  from  the  Egyptians,  but 
ould  form  a  base  for  his  intended  invasion  of  Egypt  itself.  The 
armission,  therefore,  which  he  granted  to  the  Jewish  exiles  to  return 
*ain  to  Palestine,  and  there  rebuild  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  doubtless 
jemed  to  him  a  master-stroke  of  policy  ;  he  little  knew  that  he  was 
ut  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  who  was  using  him  and  his 
orldly  counsels  to  fulfil  the  promises  that  had  been  made  years 
efore  to  the  chosen  people. 

The  return  from  the  captivity  took  place  in  the  first  year  of  the 
ngn  of  Cyrus  in  Babylonia,  that  is,  in  538  B.C.  The  journey  of  so 
.rge  a  caravan  from  Babylonia  to  Palestine  must  have  occupied  a 
Dnsiderable  time. 

Solomon's  Forced  Labourers. 

I  KINGS  ix.  20-22  :  'As  for  all  the  people  that  were  left  of  the  Amorites,  the 
ittiies,  the  Perizzites,  the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebu-ites,  which  were  not  of  the 
lildren  of  Israel  ;  their  children  that  were  left  after  them  in  the  land,  whom  the 
lildren  of  Israel  were  not  able  utterly  to  destroy,  of  them  did  Solomon  raise 
levy  of  bondservants,  unto  this  day.  But  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  Solomon 
ake  no  bondservants  :  but  they  were  the  men  of  war,  and  his  servants,  and  his 
"inces,  and  his  captains,  and  the  rulers  of  his  chariots  and  of  his  horsemen.' 

Difficulty. — The  accounts  of  the  levy  as  given  in  Kings  and  in 
Chronicles  differ  in  some  important  particulars.  If  the  demand  for 
>rced  labour  did  not  apply  to  the  Israelites,  how  could  it  be  a  cause  of 
wplaint  in  the  time  of  Rehoboam  ? 

Explanation. — It  will  be  helpful  to  place  the  passages  referring 
>  Solomon's  '  tribute  of  men '  side  by  side  ;  and  they  may  be  given 
om  the  Revised  Version,  so  as  to  secure  the  utmost  precision 
:tainable.  They  will  be  found  to  harmonize  themselves,  i  Kings  v. 
3-16  :  *  And  King  Solomon  raised  a  levy  out  of  all  Israel ;  and  the 
vy  was  thirty  thousand  men.  And  he  sent  them  to  Lebanon,  ten 
lousand  a  month  by  courses  :  a  month  they  were  in  Lebanon,  and 
vo  months  at  home  :  and  Adoniram  was  over  the  levy.  And  Solomon 


i24      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

had  threescore  and  ten  thousand  that  bare  burdens,  and  fourscore 
thousand  that  were  hewers  in  the  mountains ;  besides  Solomon's 
chief  officers  that  were  over  the  work,  three  thousand  and  three 
hundred,  which  bare  rule  over  the  people  'that  wrought  in  the  work.' 

Here  are  mentioned  30,000  men  specially  working  in  Lebanon  at 
tree-felling  and  cutting.  There  is  no  statement  made  as  to  their 
being  Israelites  or  strangers,  but  the  careful  arrangement  to  secure 
that  they  were  not  overworked,  suggests  that  they  were  Israelites. 
And  Samuel  had  duly  warned  the  people  that  if  they  had  a  king,  he 
would  exact  forced  labour  (i  Sam.  viii.  16).  Besides  this  levy,  the 
narrator  informs  us  that  Solomon  had  70,000  labourers,  and  80,000 
quarrymen  :  and  these  may  have  been  drawn  from  the  Canaanite 
population.  Over  these  it  seems  to  have  been  necessary  to  appoint 
3,300  overseers,  and  these  were  taken  from  the  native  Israelites.  It 
is  only  said  that  'Adoniram  was  over  the  levy.'  As  the  building  of 
the  Temple  was  a  work  of  love,  the  skilled  native  workmen  would 
be  independent  of  overseers,  and  would  be  likely  to  organize  them- 
selves under  their  own  foremen.  We  may  not  be  correct  in  making 
this  distinction  between  the  levy  of  Israelites  for  the  Lebanon  work, 
and  the  great  mass  of  labourers  and  stone-cutters  for  the  quarries, 
but  it  seems  to  be  the  most  reasonable  rendering  of  the  passage,  and 
it  paves  the  way  for  understanding  the  other  passages  which  refer  to 
the  matter. 

i  Kings  ix.  20,  21,  is  given  above;  and  from  the  context  it  will  be 
seen  that  reference  is  here  made  to  Solomon's  permanent  arrange- 
ments for  building  his  palaces  and  cities,  and  not  to  his  special  arrange- 
ments for  building  the  Temple.  For  that  work  a  levy  of  Israelites 
was  reasonably  made ;  but  for  ordinary  state  enterprises  Solomon  did 
not  venture  to  exact  forced  labour  from  his  own  people.  The  work 
for  which  the  levy  from  the  Canaanite  populations  was  raised,  is 
clearly  indicated  in  ch.  ix.  17-19  :  'And  Solomon  built  Gezer,  and 
Bethhoron  the  nether,  and  Baalath,  and  Tadmor  (Tamar,  R.V.)  in 
the  wilderness,  in  the  land,  and  all  the  store  cities  that  Solomon  had, 
and  the  cities  for  his  chariots,  and  the  cities  for  his  horsemen,  and 
that  which  Solomon  desired  to  build  for  his  pleasure  in  Jerusalem, 
and  in  Lebanon,  and  in  all  the  land  of  his  dominion.' 

The  descendants  of  the  Canaanite  population  had  become  so  mixed 
up  with  the  Israelites  in  all  the  cities  that  no  further  effort  could  be 
made  to  dislodge  them,  but  they  never  had  the  citizen-rights  of  native 
Israelites,  and  were  liable  to  calls  for  forced  labour,  and  were  always 
distinguished  from  the  Israelites  in  the  service  they  must  render  and  the 
tribute  they  must  bear.  We  can  quite  understand  that  Solomon  could 


SOLOMON'S  FORCED  LABOURERS.  125 

iemand  forced  labour  even  from  his  own  people  on  emergencies, 
but  the  Canaanite  population  seem  to  have  been  under  a  permanent 
:laim  ;  their  levy  is  said  to  have  been  continuous  '  unto  this  day.' 

The  other  passage  dealing  with  this  matter  is  in  2  Chron.  ii.  17,  18  : 
And  Solomon  numbered  all  the  strangers  that  were  in  the  land  of 
Csrael,  after  the  numbering  wherewith  David  his  father  had  numbered 
;hem  •  and  they  were  found  an  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  and  three 
-housand  and  six  hundred.  And  he  set  threescore  and  ten  thousand 
:>f  them  to  bear  burdens,  and  fourscore  thousand  that  were  hewers 
n  the  mountains,  and  three  thousand  and  six  hundred  overseers  to 
>et  the  people  awork.' 

Comparing  this  passage  with  that  in  i  Kings  v.  13-16,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  writer  of  the  '  Chronicles '  makes  no  reference  to  the 
30,000  who  were  sent  in  batches  of  10,000  to  Lebanon,  and  who 
were  probably  skilled  Israelite  workmen  ;  but  confines  himself  to  the 
150,000  labourers  and  stone-cutters,  who  served  in  the  quarries  of  the 
mountains.  The  only  difference  between  the  two  passages  is  found 
in  the  number  of  the  overseers,  which  is  given  in  Kings  as  3,300, 
ind  in  Chronicles  as  3,600.  But  in  the  Hebrew  writing  three 
(shalosh)  and  six  (shesh)  might  easily  be  confused. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  supports  the  view  taken  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  30,000  and  the  150,000  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  Its 
note  on  i  Kings  v.  13  is  as  follows :  'This  was,  apparently,  the  first 
:ime  that  the  Israelites  had  been  called  upon  to  perform  forced  labour. 
It  had  been  prophesied,  when  they  desired  a  king,  that,  if  they 
insisted  on  having  one,  he  would  "  take  their  menservants,  and  their 
maidservants,  and  their  goodliest  young  men,  and  put  them  to  his 
work  •"  and  David  had  bound  to  forced  service  the  "  strangers  that 
were  in  the  land  of  Israel "  (i  Chron.  xxii.  2),  but  hitherto  the 
Israelites  had  escaped.  Solomon  now,  in  connection  with  his  pro- 
posed work  of  building  the  Temple,  with  the  honour  of  God  as  an 
excuse,  laid  this  burthen  upon  them.  Out  of  the  1,300,000  able- 
bodied  Israelites  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  9),  a  band  of  30,000 — one  in  forty- 
rbur — was  raised,  of  whom  one-third  was  constantly  at  work  in 
Lebanon,  while  two-thirds  remained  at  home,  and  pursued  their 
asual  occupations.  The  working  10,000  were  relieved  every  month, 
md  thus  each  man  laboured  for  one  month  in  Lebanon,  then  spent 
:wo  months  at  home,  then  in  the  fourth  month  returned  to  his  forced 
:oil,  in  the  fifth  month  found  himself  relieved,  and  so  on  year  after 
/ear.  This,  though  a  very  light  form  of  task-work,  was  felt  as  a  great 
Dppression,  and  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes 
it  Solomon's  death.'  (i  Kings  xii.  4.) 


126      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  chief  grievance  represented  to  Rehoboam  was  the  forced 
labour  to  which  the  Israelites  had  been  subjected.  *  Forced  labour 
has  been  among  the  causes  leading  to  insurrection  in  many  ages  and 
countries.  It  alienated  the  people  of  Rome  from  the  last  Tarquin  ; 
it  helped  to  bring  about  the  French  Revolution,  and  it  was  for  many 
years  one  of  the  principal  grievances  of  the  Russian  serfs.' 

Dr.  C.  Geikie  explains  the  different  levies  in  another  way,  which, 
however,  makes  it  more  difficult  to  harmonize  the  several  passages. 
He  says  :  '  Another  grievance  that  sapped  the  loyalty  of  the  people 
was  the  systematic  enforcement  of  compulsory  or  virtually  slave 
labour,  to  carry  out  the  various  schemes  of  the  king.  The  Temple  : 
the  vast  series  of  royal  buildings  at  Jerusalem  ;  the  fortifications  of 
that  city ;  the  erection  of  strongholds  at  different  points ;  the  con- 
struction of  the  great  royal  roads  ;  the  creation  of  the  royal  gardens 
and  parks  ;  the  building  of  the  huge  aqueducts  and  reservoirs  at  the 
capital,  and  much  else,  had  required  an  amount  of  labour  which 
could  not  be  obtained  by  ordinary  means.  Even  Solomon's  revenues 
would  not,  indeed,  have  met  the  cost  of  it,  had  they  been  available. 
In  imitation  of  the  Pharaohs,  therefore,  he  established  and  enforced 
a  system  of  forced,  unpaid  labour,  on  the  community  at  large.  At 
first,  however,  this  was  demanded  only  from  the  remnants  of  the 
Canaanites.  They  had.  indeed,  been  subjected  to  this  serfdom  in 
the  later  years  of  David's  reign,  but  the  yoke  was  now  laid  on  then- 
much  more  heavily.  Thirty  thousand  men  were  drafted  to  toil  in  the 
forests  of  Lebanon  and  in  the  quarries  at  Jerusalem,  felling  trees 
and  hewing  vast  stones  ;  10,000  serving  a  month  in  rotation,  with  ar 
interval  of  two  months  at  home,  to  attend  to  their  own  affairs ;  a  ta> 
of  four  months'  labour  a  year  from  each  of  the  30,000.  But  ever 
this  army  of  unwilling  labourers  was  insufficient,  as  the  buildings  anc 
other  undertakings  of  the  king  increased.  A  levy  was  therefore 
raised  from  "  all  Israel,"  not  from  the  Canaanites  only,  amounting  t( 
70,000  men  to  carry  loads,  and  80,000  to  hew  down  and  squan 
timber  in  Lebanon,  and  to  quarry  and  prepare  building  stones  :  3,3oc 
overseers  watching  that  the  tasks  were  performed.  How  great  th< 
suffering  imposed  by  these  corvees  must  have  been,  is  easy  to  imagine 
Continued  through  years,  involving  exposure  for  months  together  01 
the  mountains,  or  toil  in  the  darkness  of  quarries  worked  like  mines 
where  the  smoke  of  their  torches,  used  in  the  thick  darkness,  ma; 
still  be  seen — they  must  have  been  fatal  to  many.  But  besides  al 
this,  there  was  the  exhausting  labour  of  moving  huge  trees  to  th< 
distant  sea-shore  ;  and  on  their  reaching  Joppa,  dragging  them  up  th< 
steep  mountain  passes  to  Jerusalem  ;  or  transporting  immense  block 


KINGS  ASSOCIATED   WITH  THE  CAPTIVITY.     127 

of  stone  on  rough  sledges,  from  the  quarries  to  the  Temple  site  on 
Mount  Moriah.  Forced  labour  in  the  East  has,  in  all  ages,  been  as 
fatal  as  war,  and  it  was  probably  as  destructive  in  Solomon's  time.' 

As  indicating  that  even  the  Israelites  were  subject  to  forced  labour, 
Geikie  recalls  the  fact  that,  in  i  Kings  xi.  28,  Jeroboam,  the  master 
of  the  public  works,  is  said  to  have  been  '  over  all  the  charge  of  the 
house  of  Joseph.' 

The  Kings  Associated  with  the  Captivity. 

2  KINGS  xvii.  3  :  'Against  him  came  up  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria  ;  and 
Hoshea  became  his  servant,  and  gave  him  presents.' 

2  KINGS  xvii.  5  :  '  Then  the  king  of  Assyria  came  up  throughout  all  the  land, 
and  went  up  to  Samaria,  and  besieged  it  three  years.' 

Question. — Can  it  be  the  same  King  of  Assyria  that  is  mentioned 
in  these  two  verses  ? 

Answer. — The  fact  that  the  name  is  not  given  in  the  second 
passage  suggests  that  another  king  may  be  referred  to,  and  another 
invasion,  or  another  phase  of  the  invasion,  is  dealt  with.  The  history, 
as  corrected  by  recent  discoveries,  shows  that  Tiglath-Pileser  died  in 
B.C.  727,  and  was  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser  IV.,  the  king  referred 
to  above  in  verse  3.  The  refusal  of  Hoshea  to  continue  the  yearly 
tribute  of  ten  talents  of  gold,  and  a  thousand  of  silver,  which  Hoshea 
had  promised  to  Tiglath-Pileser,  brought  Shalmaneser  into  the  West. 
He  unsuccessfully  besieged  Tyre,  but  carried  Hoshea  away  captive, 
and  commenced  a  blockade  of  Samaria,  which  lasted  for  three  years. 
During  this  blockade  Shalmaneser  died,  and  the  crown  was  seized  by 
one  of  the  Assyrian  generals.  He  assumed  the  name  of  Sargon,  in 
memory  of  the  famous  Babylonian  monarch  who  had  reigned  so 
many  centuries  before.  The  later  phases,  therefore,  of  the  taking  of 
Samaria,  and  the  deportation  of  the  inhabitants,  belong  to  Sargon 
rather  than  to  Shalmaneser,  though  Sargon  did  but  carry  out  the 
scheme  which  Shalmaneser  had  devised  and  commenced.  The 
association  of  the  two  kings  will  explain  the  different  form  in  which 
the  reference  in  verse  5  is  set. 

The  second  invasion  of  Shalmaneser  fell  in  the  year  B.C.  723,  and 
the  time  given  for  the  siege  of  Samaria  is  three  years  according  to 
the  Hebrew  method  of  reckoning,  but  only  two  years  according  to 
our  method. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  says:  'The  King  of  Assyria  who  took 
Samaria  appears  by  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  not  to  have  been 
Shalmaneser,  but  Sargon.  At  least  this  monarch  claims  to  have 
captured  the  city  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  which  was  B.C.  721 


128      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

according  to  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  the  very  year  of  this  capture, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  numbers.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
writer  of  Kings  does  not  say  that  Shalmaneser  took  Samaria,  but 
only  that  the  "King  of  Assyria"  did  so;  and  in  ch.  xviii.  10  he  is 
still  more  cautious ;  for,  having  stated  that  "  Shalmaneser  came  up 
against  Samaria  and  besieged  it,"  he  adds,  that  "at  the  end  of  three 
years  they  took  it.'" 

Nothing  is  known  respecting  the  death  of  Shalmaneser ;  but 
Sargon  reports  concerning  himself,  in  the  great  inscription  published 
by  Botta  :  '  The  city  of  Samaria  (Samerina)  I  assaulted,  I  took ; 
27,280  men  dwelling  in  the  midst  thereof  I  carried  off;  fifty  chariots 
among  them  I  set  apart  (for  myself),  and  the  rest  of  their  wealth  I  let 
(my  soldiers)  take ;  my  prefect  over  them  I  appointed,  and  the 
tribute  of  the  former  king  upon  them  I  laid.' 

Dr.  Lumby  in  a  note  on  ch.  xviii.  10,  observes  that  the  consonants 
might  be  fitted  with  vowel-points,  making  them  read,  '  he  took  it.' 
But  the  vowels  for  the  plural  form,  they,  as  given  by  the  Massoretes, 
can  only  be  the  result  of  a  long-retained  tradition. 


The   various   Fates  of  the  Scapegoat. 

LEVITICUS  xvi.  21,  22  :  '  And  shall  send  him  away  by  the  hands  of  a  man  that 
is  in  readiness  into  the  wilderness  ;  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  theii 
iniquities  into  a  solitary  land  :  and  he  shall  let  go  the  goat  in  the  wilderness.' 

Difficulty. — This  requirement  would  have  to  be  modified  when  tht 
people  no  longer  lived  in  the  desert  districts.  Are  there  any  traces  oj 
the  later  fulfilment  of  the  injunction  ? 

Explanation. — According  to  the  law  of  Moses,  the  scapegoa 
was  led  into  the  wilderness,  and  there  set  free.  But  on  one  occasior 
the  animal  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  omen  was  thought  so  bac 
that  afterwards  it  was  led  out  to  a  high  mountain,  called  Sook,  am 
there  pushed  over  the  precipice,  and  dashed  to  pieces.  It  was  takei 
out  on  the  Sabbath  day.  To  evade,  therefore,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
day's  journey,  a  tabernacle  was  erected  at  every  term  of  2,oo< 
cubits,  in  which  the  messenger  ate  and  drank,  after  which  he  wa 
legally  enabled  to  travel  another  stage.  Ten  such  tabernacles  wer 
constructed  between  Sook  and  Jerusalem,  and  the  distance  wa 
ninety  Ris,  or  about  six  and  a  half  English  miles.  The  district  wa 
called  Hidoodim,  and  the  high  mountain,  Sook,  the  first  meanin 
sharp,  the  second  narrow,  both  applying  well  to  the  knife-edge- 
ridges  of  the  desert  and  hill.  The  distance  of  ninety  Ris,  measure* 
from  Jerusalem,  brings  us  now  to  a  great  hill  called  El  Muntar 


2 HE   VARIOUS  FATES  OF  THE  SCAPEGOAT.      129 

beside  the  ancient  road  from  Jerusalem  there  is  now  a  well  called 
Suk,  while  in  the  modern  Hadeidun,  which  is  applied  to  a  part  of  the 
ridge,  we  may  recognise  the  earlier  Hebrew  word  Hidoodim. 
Captain  Conder,  R.E.,  who  suggests  this  identification,  thinks  we 
have  in  the  present  El  Muntar  the  scene  of  the  destruction  of  the 
scapegoat.  (*  Biblical  Things.') 

There  are  now  no  sacrificial  priests,  and  of  course  the  '  scapegoat,' 
or  goat  of  Azazel,  is  not  sent  into  the  wilderness. 

The  curious  feature  of  the  modern  Day  of  Atonement  is  the 
sacrifice  of  a  cock  ;  and  the  greatest  pains  are  taken  to  secure  a  white 
cock.  '  The  reason  why  they  use  a  cock  rather  than  any  other 
creature  is  this :  In  Hebrew  a  man  is  called  Gever.  Now  if  Gever 
(man)  has  sinned,  Gever  must  also  sustain  the  penalty  thereof.  But 
since  the  punishment  is  heavier  than  the  Jews  can  bear,  the  Rabbis 
have  substituted  for  them  a  cock,  which  in  the  Chaldee  dialect  is 
called  Gever,  and  thus  the  Divine  justice  is  assumed  to  be  satisfied ; 
because  as  Gever  has  sinned,  so  Gever,  i.e.,  a  cock,  is  sacrificed.' 
But  no  attempt  is  made  to  provide  two  cocks,  and  liberate  one,  which 
would  seem  to  be  the  fitting  reproduction  of  the  older  ceremony. 


The  Nature  of  Solomon's  Idolatry. 

I  KINGS  xi.  4 :  '  For  it  came  to  pass,  when  Solomon  was  old,  that  his  wives 
turned  away  his  heart  after  other  gods  :  and  his  heart  was  riot  perfect  with  the 
Lord  his  God,  as  was  the  heart  of  David  his  father.' 

Question. — Are  there  any  qualifications  that  should  be  put  on 
the  apparent  representation  of  Solomon  as  an  apostate  ? 

Answer. — The  Bible  never  represents  Solomon  as  a  personally 
pious  man.  He  was  officially  religious.  Religion  for  him  belonged 
to  kingship.  It  was  a  matter  of  state  policy  to  uphold  the  national 
ceremonial,  and  to  make  it  as  magnificent  as  possible.  But  when  a 
man's  attention  is  attracted  to  ceremonial,  he  loses  the  sense  of  ex- 
clusiveness  in  religion,  and  becomes  interested  in  various  ceremonials, 
and  inclines  towards  the  most  magnificent. 

But  Solomon's  grave  peril  lay  in  the  exaggerated  liberalism  of  the 
religion  he  had.  It  was  such  liberalism  as  usually  characterizes  a 
commercial  and  wealthy  age.  It  is  especially  pointed  out,  that 
Solomon's  self-indulgence  led  him  to  take  wives  from  the  princely 
families  of  the  neighbouring  idolatrous  nations,  and  it  was  inevitable 
that  their  religious  preferences  would  have  to  be  considered,  and 
though  Solomon  would  not  go  the  length  of  introducing  idolatrous 
altars  or  temples  into  Jerusalem,  he  did  allow  the  hilltops  round  the 

9 


130      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Holy  City  to  become  idolatrous  '  high  places.'  He  even  went  so  far 
as  to  meet  the  wishes  of  his  wives,  and  make  the  required  provision 
for  their  worship.  '  Then  did  Solomon  build  an  high  place  for 
Chemosh,  the  abomination  of  Moab,  in  the  hill  that  is  before  Jeru- 
salem, and  for  Molech,  the  abomination  of  the  children  of  Ammon. 
And  likewise  did  he  for  all  his  strange  wives,  which  burnt  incense 
and  sacrificed  unto  their  gods.' 

It  is  pressing  the  narrative  too  hard  to  make  it  mean  that  Solomon 
became  himself  an  idolater.  His  sin  lay  in  his  indifference  to  the 
exclusive  claims  of  Jehovah  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  It  lay  in  what 
he  permitted  rather  than  in  what  he  himself  did.  The  true-hearted 
servant  of  Jehovah  cannot  fail  to  be  vigorous  in  his  opposition  to  all 
rival  deities.  Jealousy  of  the  Divine  honour  is  a  necessary  feature  of 
the  '  perfect  heart '  towards  Jehovah,  which  was  characteristic  of 
David,  but  could  not  be  found  in  Solomon.  Solomon  was  officially 
true  to  Jehovah  right  to  the  end  of  life.  If  he  had  been  personally 
pious,  heart-consecrated  to  Jehovah,  he  would  have  guarded  Jehovah's 
claim,  and  Temple,  and  land,  from  every  encroachment  of  idolatry. 
It  was  in  that  he  so  shamefully  failed,  through  a  false  liberalism, 
which  almost  persuaded  him  to  say  :  *  Each  man's  religion  is  the  best 
for  himself.'  '  One  religion  is  as  good  as  another.' 

As  careful  estimates  of  Solomon's  religious  character  are  seldom 
made,  it  may  be  helpful  to  select,  from  the  foremost  writers  on  the 
Old  Testament  history,  some  judicious  criticisms.  One  writer  says  : 
'Brought  up  from  his  infancy  in  wealth,  he  never  knew  poverty, 
hardship,  or  trouble,  and  consequently  sides  of  his  nature  must  have 
been  undeveloped.  We  never  find  in  him  that  heart-crying  for  God 
which  distinguished  his  suffering  and  persecuted  father.  His  religion 
had  not  been  a  thing  of  personal  struggle,  and  was  always  viewed  by 
him  as  intended  for  the  practical  guidance  of  conduct ;  it  did  not 
possess  him  as  a  Divine  force,  finding  expression  first  in  commun- 
ings  with  God,  and  then  in  a  life  of  holiness.  .  .  .  Very  much  im- 
portance attached  to  the  personal  character  of  the  king,  and  that  very 
sadly  deteriorated  towards  the  end  of  his  life.  It  may  fairly  be  dis- 
puted whether  he  ever  gave  up  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  became 
an  idolater.  We  incline  to  think  that  he  did  not,  and  that  his  sin 
was  the  laxity  with  which  he  regarded  the  introduction  of  foreign  and 
idolatrous  customs,  and  the  luxury  of  living  which  he  permitted  to 
himself  and  his  court.' 

Professor  Wilkins  writes  as  follows  concerning  the  restoration  of  the 
worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtaroth  :  '  In  the  days  of  Solomon,  partly  no 
doubt  from  policy,  partly  from  a  dangerous  latitudinarianism,  taking 
the  form  of  a  desire  to  recognise  the  germ  of  good  that  might  under- 


THE  NA  TURE  OF  SOLOMON'S  ID  OLA  TRY.      131 

lie  the  evil  of  foreign  religions,  partly,  as  the  Scripture  narrative  dis- 
tinctly asserts,  from  the  fascination  of  "  strange  women,"  he  went 
after  Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians.  Perhaps  we  may 
accept  the  opinion  of  Ewald,  supported  by  many  forcible  arguments, 
that  Solomon  did  not  himself  fall  into  idolatry,  but  only  sanctioned 
the  hereditary  worship  of  his  Sidonian,  Ammonite,  and  Moabite 
wives.  And  Dean  Milman  has  well  reminded  us  that  the  extent  of 
Solomon's  empire  enforced  either  toleration  or  internecine  persecu- 
tion. "  When  the  king  of  the  Jews  became  king  of  a  great  Eastern 
empire,  he  had  no  course  but  to  tolerate  the  religion  of  his  non- 
Jewish  subjects,  or  to  exterminate  them." ' 

In  the  most  recent  *  Life  of  Solomon,'  Archdeacon  Farrar  takes 
the  severest  view  of  Solomon's  apostasy.  *  For  an  apostasy  we  must 
call  it,  as  St.  Augustine  does.'  'For  the  sake  of  his  other  wives 
(other  than  Pharaoh's  daughter)  he  lent  to  idolatry  the  sanction  not 
only  of  tolerance,  not  only  of  acquiescence,  but  of  direct  participation 
in  the  most  revolting  forms  of  superstition.  The  bare  mention  of 
the  fact  in  the  Book  of  Kings  affords  us  no  measure  of  the  depth  of 
his  fall.  If  we  are  to  take  the  statement  literally,  he  offered  burnt 
offerings  and  thank  offerings  on  stated  occasions  during  all  his  life 
upon  the  great  brazen  altar,  and  also  burnt  incense.  The  case  is 
thus  made  much  worse.  The  worship  of  Jehovah  was  rigidly  and 
jealously  exclusive  whenever  it  was  in  any  way  sincere.  But 
Solomon's  devotions  became  not  merely  eclectic,  but  were  a 
syncretism  of  the  most  glaringly  contrasted  and  violently  opposing 
elements,  between  which  no  union  was  for  a  moment  possible.  Like 
the  dregs  of  a  mixed  population  which  the  kings  of  Assyria  placed 
in  Samaria  —an  ignorant  multitude,  who  "  feared  the  Lord  and  served 
their  own  gods" — so  Solomon,  but  with  infinitely  less  excuse, 
worshipped  alike  in  the  Temple  of  Jehovah  and  in  that  of  Chemosh, 
and  that  not  only  in  secrecy,  but  publicly  on  the  hill  opposite  his 
own  palace  and  Temple.  For  Solomon  "  went  after  " — in  other  words, 
idolatrously  worshipped — Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians.' 

The  Altar  of  Ed. 

JOSHUA  xxii.  10  :  '  And  when  they  came  unto  the  borders  of  Jordan,  that  are  in 
the  land  of  Canaan,  the  children  of  Reuben  and  the  children  of  Gad  and  the  half 
tribe  of  Manasseh  built  there  an  altar  by  Jordan,  a  great  altar  to  see  to.' 

Question. — Has  any  light  been  thrown^  by  recent  explorations,  on 
the  position  of  the  hill  on  which  this  altar  was  erected  ? 

Answer. — The  question  is  an  interesting  one,  as  showing  the  im- 
portance of  the  work  done  by  the  '  Palestine  Exploration  Society/ 

9—2 


r32      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  site  of  this  altar  seems  to  have  been  entirely  forgotten  ;  and  until 
recent  times,  no  successful  attempt  had  been  made  to  recover  it  > 
and  yet  its  identification  would  be  a  striking  confirmation  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament  history,  and  a  remarkable  survival 
of  the  old  Biblical  names. 

All  that  was  known  was,  that  the  altar  was  erected,  purely  as  a 
monument,  on  some  conspicuous  position,  near  the  Jordan,  and  on 
the  western  side.  It  stood  to  represent  the  rights  of  the  Trans- 
Jordanic  tribes  in  the  Holy  Land.  Conder,  in  his  '  Survey  of  Pales- 
tine,' gave  particular  attention  to  this  site,  and  the  identification  of  it 
will  ever  be  associated  with  his  name.  The  following  is  the  most 
interesting  portion  of  his  report  on  the  subject : 

1  From  the  internal  evidence  we  are  able  to  point  with  tolerable 
accuracy  to  the  approximate  position  and  character  of  the  great 
Witness  Altar.  It  must  be  near  and  above  Jordan,  on  some  hilltop 
west  of  the  river,  between  the  modern  village  of  Seilun  and  the  ford 
of  the  Damieh,  placed  in  a  conspicuous  position,  and  possibly  giving 
ruins  of  some  magnitude.  In  addition  to  which  we  should  hope  to 
find  remains  of  the  name  in  some  modern  Arabic  word.  There  is 
but  one  spot  in  Palestine  which  will  fulfil  these  very  definite  require- 
ments, and  that  spot  is  perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  in  the  country. 
From  the  heights  of  Ebal  its  sharp  cone  stands  out  against  the  white 
valley ;  from  the  Castle  of  Kaukab  el  Hawa,  near  Gennesaret,  it  is 
visible  at  a  distance  of  thirty  miles ;  from  the  shores  of  the  Dead 
Sea  and  the  plains  of  Jericho  it  stands  forth  prominently  as  a  great 
bastion  closing  the  Jordan  Valley ;  from  the  eastern  highlands  it  is  no 
less  conspicuous,  and  from  the  Judaean  watershed  it  is  visible  at  a 
great  distance.  Every  traveller  who  has  been  to  Jericho  has  seen  it ; 
all  have  asked  what  it  is,  and  been  disappointed  to  find  that  it  was 
of  no  historical  importance,  and  had  only  a  modern  Arabic  name. 
For  nearly  a  month  I  lived  at  its  foot,  firmly  convinced  that  so  con- 
spicuous a  landmark  must  have  played  a  part  in  history,  yet  utterly 
puzzled  as  to  what  that  part  could  have  been.  To  every  explorer  it 
has  been  a  point  of  interest,  and  yet  I  hardly  know  of  one  who  has 
examined  it.  The  place  in  question  is  the  high  cone  of  the  Kurn 
Surtabeh,  the  Surtabeh  of  the  Talmud,  and  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  our  trigonometrical  stations  on  the  eastern  border  of  the 
survey.  .  .  .  Upon  its  summit  remains  to  this  day  the  ruin  of  a 
great  monument  of  the  kind  indicated  in  the  Bible  account.  At  the 
foot  of  the  mountain  lie  the  Gelilloth  of  Jordan,  the  ground  being  of 
that  peculiar  broken  character  to  which  I  suppose  the  word  specially  to 
refer.  When,  in  addition  to  these  indications,  we  find  a  trace  of  the 


THE  ASSYRIAN  COLONISTS  OF  SAMARIA.      133 

original  name,  the  conclusion  seems  irresistible.  For  some  time  I 
sought  this  in  vain  on  the  map.  It  is  a  question  which  I  leave  to 
the  learned  whether  there  can  be  any  connection  between  the  name 
Surtabeh  and  the  Hebrew  Metzebeh — the  altar.  The  remaining 
summits  of  the  block  are  called  respectively  El  Musetterah,  Ras  el 
Kuneiberah,  and  Ras  el  Hafireh.  The  real  name,  as  often  happens, 
has  deserted  the  place  itself,  but  may  still  be  traced  in  the  neighbour- 
hood. I  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  natural  ascent  to  the 
Kurn  is  from  the  north.  On  this  side  I  find  marked  on  our  map,  as 
a  valley  name,  Tal  'at  Abn  'Ayd  (The  ascent  of  tlie  father  of  'Ayd}. 
The  peculiar  use  in  the  vernacular  Arabic  of  the  word  Abn,  as  mean- 
ing that  which  produces,  leads  to,  or  possesses,  would  make  the 
natural  translation  of  this  term  to  be,  "The  going  up  which  leads  to 
'Ayd,"  or  Ed.  Though  the  monument  itself  has  lost  its  real  name, 
the  ascent  to  the  summit,  by  which  the  strong  men  of  the  two  and  a 
half  tribes  must  have  gone  up,  preserved  the  memory  of  the  Witness 
Altar.' 

The  Assyrian  Colonists  of  Samaria. 

2  KINGS  xvii.  33,  Rev.  Ver. :  '  They  feared  the  Lord,  and  served  their  own  gods, 
after  the  manner  of  the  nations  from  among  whom  they  had  been  carried  away.' 

Question. — Is  the  recognition  of  Jehovah  by  these  colonists  to  be 
regarded  as  in  any  sense  satisfactory  or  hopeful  ? 

Answer. — The  removal  of  populations,  in  ancient  times,  was  not 
done  in  the  interests  of  religion,  but  of  public  and  national  policy. 
The  idea  that  each  kingdom  and  country  had  its  own  local  gods  pre- 
vented the  ancients  from  attempting  to  extend  their  religions.  No 
religion  then  was  thought  of  as  having  exclusive  claims  to  the  alle- 
giance of  everybody,  and  even  the  Jews  were  under  no  obligation  to 
propagate  that  really  universal  religion  which  had  been  entrusted  to 
their  care,  until  the  fulness  of  the  times  had  come.  It  was  only  an 
accident,  therefore,  and  no  settled  intention  of  the  conquerors,  that 
the  colonists  brought  their  religion  from  their  Eastern  homes,  and 
established  it  in  Samaria. 

It  is  difficult  to  recover  the  circumstances  which  made  the  wholesale 
removal  of  populations  a  wise  policy.  It  may  have  been  the  ancient 
method  of  relieving  districts  that  were  overcrowded,  and  so  it  answered 
to  the  emigration  schemes  of  modern  times.  It  may  have  been  the 
most  efficient  way  of  securing  conquests  that  were  made  very  rapidly ; 
and  the  persons  carried  away  may  have  been  the  leaders,  who  might 
head  revolt  against  the  conquerors.  It  was  a  vigorous  way  of  dealing 
with  turbulent  populations,  breaking  them  up  into  widely-separated 


i34      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

sections,  beyond  the  power  of  inter-communication.  Or  it  may  have 
been  a  way  of  reoccupying  devastated  districts,  so  as  to  secure  revenue 
from  them  for  the  conquerors. 

We  are  to  understand  that  the  Assyrians  carried  away  the  aristo- 
cratic sections  of  the  people  of  Samaria,  and  the  artisan  and  trading 
classes,  but  left  the  poor  and  disabled.  To  take  possession  of  houses, 
farms,  etc.,  and  carry  on  the  ordinary  life  of  the  towns  and  villages, 
people  of  the  commercial  and  the  working  classes  were  brought  from 
various  parts  of  Assyria.  Purposely  people  from  different  districts 
had  been  selected,  so  that  there  might  be  conflicting  interests,  and 
no  chance  of  combination  to  secure  independence.  At  first  these 
colonists  were  scattered  over  the  country,  and  not  sufficient  in  number 
to  till  all  the  land,  or  even  preserve  themselves  from  the  increase  and 
inroads  of  the  wild  beasts.  This  particular  evil,  indeed,  so  grew 
upon  them,  that  common  counsel  for  the  common  protection  became 
necessary.  They  could  but  think  about  the  matter  along  their  own 
lines,  and  the  readiest  solution  to  men  who  believed  in  gods  belonging 
to  each  country  was,  that  the  god  of  the  country  of  Samaria  was 
taking  this  method  of  avenging  himself  for  the  neglect  of  his  worship; 
and  that  the  way  to  appease  him  was  to  give  him  a  place  among  the 
gods  of  their  own  lands.  Of  course,  their  real  interest  lay  in  the  gods 
with  whom  they  were  familiar,  and  those  they  really  served  with  their 
hearts.  It  is  significantly  said,  '  They  feared  the  Lord,'  because 
whatever  worship  they  offered  to  Him  was  due  only  to  anxiety  about 
the  safety  of  themselves  and  their  property. 

It  is  manifest  that  religion  of  this  kind  could  be  no  satisfaction  at 
all  to  Jehovah,  nor  could  it  unfold,  in  after  generations,  into  anything 
better  than  a  mixed  religion,  in  which  superstitious  elements  would 
be  of  much  more  importance  than  moral  elements.  Our  Lord,  in 
talking  to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  would  not  recognise  the  Samaritan 
religion  as  based  on  any  sound  foundations. 

Geikie  supports  this  view.  *  Stripped  of  its  inhabitants  the  land  of 
Samaria  threatened  to  relapse  into  a  wilderness.  Beasts  of  prey,  and 
notably  lions,  increased  so  much  as  to  become  dangerous — a  calamity 
which  seemed  to  the  superstitious  foreign  settlers  scattered  over  it  a 
judgment  on  them  for  their  not  knowing  how  to  worship  the  local 
god.  At  their  humble  request,  therefore,  an  Israelite  priest  was  sent 
from  Assyria  to  give  them  the  needful  instruction,  and  to  set  apart 
whom  he  could  as  his  colleagues.  But  heathenism  is  difficult  to 
eradicate,  and  the  only  result  was  the  addition  of  the  God  of  Israel 
to  the  gods  of  the  different  nations  now  in  the  land.' 

C.  J.  Ball  points  out  that  the  term  '  fear  of  the  Lord '  is  used,  not 


THE  ASSYRIAN  COLONISTS  OF  SAMARIA.      135 

in  the  modern  ethical  but  in  the  ancient  ceremonial  sense,  and  says  : 
'In  the  interval  between  the  Assyrian  depopulation  and  the  re- 
peopling  of  the  land,  the  lions  indigenous  to  the  country  had  multi- 
plied naturally  enough.  Their  ravages  were  understood  by  the 
colonists  as  a  token  of  the  wrath  of  the  local  deity  on  account  of 
their  neglect  of  his  worship.  The  sacred  writer  endorses  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  incidents,  probably  remembering  Lev.  xxvi.  22.' 
The  remnant  of  the  ten  tribes  who  amalgamated  with  the  new  settlers 
seem  to  have  accepted  the  mixed  religion  which  they  adopted ;  but 
we  must  keep  in  mind  that  the  people  of  Israel  had  become  virtual 
idolaters  before  the  Samaritan  kingdom  was  destroyed. 

Speaker's  Commentary  meets  the  question  why  the  colonists  could 
not  learn  the  manner  of  the  old  worship  from  the  *  remnant  of  Israel,' 
if  any  were  left  in  the  land.  '  The  answer  seems  to  be,  that  the 
arcana  of  the  worship  would  be  known  to  none  excepting  the  priests 
who  had  ministered  at  the  two  national  sanctuaries  of  Dan  and 
Bethel ;  and  that  these,  as  being  important  personages,  had  been 
carried  off.  The  expression,  "  One  of  the  priests  whom  ye  brought 
from  thence"  shows  that  the  colonization  had  taken  place,  the  afflic- 
tion from  the  lions  been  suffered,  and  the  embassy  sent,  while  the 
original  captives  were  still  living — therefore  long  before  Esar-haddon.' 

Commenting  on  this  attempt  to  unite  Jehovah  worship  with 
idolatry,  Bishop  Hall  says  :  '  This  they  did,  not  for  devotion,  but  for 
impunity.  Vain  politicians,  to  think  to  satisfy  God  by  patching  up 
religions  !  What  a  prodigious  mixture  was  here,  true  with  false, 
Jewish  with  paganish,  Divine  with  devilish !  No  beggar's  cloak  is 
more  pieced  than  the  religion  of  these  new  inhabitants  of  Israel.  I 
know  not  how  their  bodies  sped  for  the  lions.  I  am  sure  their  souls 
fared  the  worse  for  this  medley.  Above  all  things,  God  hates  a 
mongrel  devotion.  If  we  be  not  all  Israel,  it  were  better  to  be  all 
Asshur.  It  cannot  so  much  displease  God  to  be  unknown  or  neg- 
lected as  to  be  consorted  with  idols.' 

Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander  says  the  mistake  of  these  people  'lay  in 
imagining  that  forms  of  worship,  extorted  from  them  by  their  selfish 
fears,  would  be  sufficient  to  propitiate  the  Most  High,  and  secure 
them  from  His  vengeance ;  while  their  voluntary  service,  their 
cordial  and  habitual  devotion,  was  expended  on  His  enemies  and 
rivals.' 


136      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


David  and  the  Philistine  Images. 

2  SAMUEL  v.  21,  Rev.  Ver. :  '  And  they  left  their  images  there,  and  David  and 
his  men  took  them  away.' 

i  CHRON.  xiv.  12,  A'ev.  Ver.:  'And  they  left  their  gods  there;  and  David 
gave  commandment,  and  they  were  burned  with  fire.' 

Difficulty. — One  account  seems  to  say  they  were  '  taken  away,'  the 
other  seems  to  say  that  they  were  '  destroyed? 

Explanation. — In  the  Authorised  Version  of  2  Sam.  v.  21,  it  is 
said  that  'his  men  burned  them;'  but  the  marginal  note  is  'took 
them  away,'  and  this  has  been  properly  put  in  the  text  of  the  Revised 
Version.  The  Hebrew  word  rendered  '  took  them  away '  is  equi- 
valent to  '  destroyed  them ;'  and  then  the  statement  found  in  i  Chron. 
xiv.  12,  is  only  an  addition,  giving  the  particular  way  in  which  they 
were  destroyed. 

We  understand  that  the  attack  of  David  on  the  Philistines  was  a 
sudden  raid,  and  the  passage  2  Sam.  v.  21  indicates  the  precipitancy 
of  their  flight,  so  they  could  not  even  attempt  to  save  their  gods,  or 
the  images  which  the  nations  of  antiquity  were  accustomed  to  carry 
into  battle  with  them,  believing  that  there  was  virtue  in  the  images 
themselves,  and  that  military  success  would  be  obtained  by  means  of 
them.  The  suddenness  of  the  Israelite  attack  is  likened  to  the 
bursting  forth  of  a  breach  of  waters. 

Among  the  spoil  these  images,  or  gods,  were  discovered,  and  they 
were  carried  off  by  the  people.  Subsequently  David  found  them  an 
occasion  of  mischief,  and  therefore  commanded  that  they  should  be 
burned.  The  first  passage  may  simply  narrate  what  took  place  on 
the  day  of  battle  ;  the  second  tells  what  ultimately  was  done  with  the 
images. 

Canon  Rawlinson  may  be  cited  as  supporting  this  view.  'The 
present  passage  (i  Chron.  xiv.  12)  has  been  called  a  "contradiction  " 
of  the  one  in  Samuel,  but  at  the  utmost  it  is  an  addition.  We  may 
either  understand  the  phrase,  "  took  them  away,"  as  equivalent  to 
"destroyed  them,"  or  we  may  take  it  literally,  and  conclude  that 
David,  in  the  first  instance,  carried  the  images  as  trophies  to  Jeru- 
salem, but  that  when  he  had  exhibited  them  there,  he  obeyed  the 
injunctions  of  the  law  (Deut.  vii.  5,  25)  and  destroyed  them  with 
fire.' 


ASSYRIA  HELPING  AHAZ.  137 


Assyria  Helping  Ahaz. 

2  KINGS  xvi.  9  :  'And  the  king  of  Assyria  hearkened  unto  him :  for  the  king 
of  Assyria  went  up  against  Damascus,  and  took  it.' 

2  CHRON.  xxviii.  20:  'And  Tilgath-pilneser,  king  of  Assyria,  came  unto  him, 
and  distressed  him,  but  strengthened  him  not.' 

Difficulty. — These  verses  give  distinctly  opposite  accounts  of  the 
relations  subsisting  between  Ahaz  and,  the  king  of  Assyria. 

Explanation. — Let  us  first  see  clearly  what  the  contradiction 
appears  to  be.  We  read  in  the  Book  of  Kings  of  a  monarch  who  is 
said  to  have  hearkened  to  another  monarch's  plea  for  help,  and  so 
far  to  have  succeeded  in  rendering  it  as  to  have  taken  his  enemy's 
capital,  put  its  king  to  death,  and  carried  its  inhabitants  away  into 
captivity.  Yet  it  is  stated  in  the  parallel  narrative  in  Chronicles  that 
the  same  monarch  distressed  the  King  of  Judah,  for  whom  he  had 
done  such  a  work  of  destruction,  and  strengthened  him  not. 

The  king  referred  to  as  the  one  from  whom  help  was  sought  was 
Tiglath-Pileser,  the  Tiger-Lord  of  Assyria.  And  a  tiger  he  proved 
himself  to  be  to  more  than  one  party  engaged  in  the  strife.  He  slew 
Rezin,  King  of  Syria ;  took  possession  of  Damascus,  its  capital ;  sent 
its  inhabitants  into  captivity,  and  broke  up  the  kingdom,  establishing 
himself  upon  its  ruins.  So  far  he  hearkened  to  Ahaz,  and  helped 
him  out  of  his  impending  difficulties. 

But  when  we  inquire  what  price  Ahaz  had  to  pay  for  this  help,  we 
find  that  it  was  no  real  help.  The  removal  of  peril  in  one  direction 
involved  the  infliction  of  serious  distress  in  another.  Ahaz  paid  a 
dear  price  for  his  alliance  with  Assyria.  He  had  to  strip  his  own 
palace,  and  rob  the  house  of  God,  of  all  the  gold  and  silver  in  it ;  he 
had  to  rob  the  princes,  rob  the  people,  to  bribe  this  heathen  prince 
to  render  him  assistance.  So  it  came  to  pass  that,  while  in  one  way 
Tiglath  helped  Ahaz,  in  another  way  he  seriously  distressed  him,  and 
both  the  Scripture  representations  are  correct. 

An  illustration  may  be  found  in  our  own  national  history.  The 
Britons  invoke  the  Saxons  to  aid  them  against  the  Picts  and  Scots. 
They  comply  gladly  enough,  help  them  to  repel  the  invaders,  but 
forget  to  return,  and  remain  masters  of  the  country.  The  Saxons 
'  hearkened  '  to  the  Britons,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  '  they  distressed 
them,  and  strengthened  them  not.' 

The  expression  'distressed  him,'  refers  to  the  King  of  Assyria's 
demands  upon  Ahaz,  before  and  after  the  battle,  and  not  to  any 
failure  on  his  part  in  the  performance  of  his  compact  relating  to  the 
Syro-Israelitish  invasion. 


138      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Abijah's  Mother. 

2  CHRON.  xi.  20  :  '  Maachah  the  daughter  of  Absalom.' 

2  CHRON.  xiii.  2  :  'Michaiah  the  daughter  of  Uriel  of  Gibeah.' 

Question. —  Who  was  the  actual  father  of  Maachah  ? 

Answer. — This  subject  is  of  interest  as  illustrating  a  class  of 
Bible  difficulties — those  which  are  created  by  the  incompleteness  of 
the  information  that  is  at  our  command.  Common-sense  usually 
suffices  to  supply  the  missing  connections,  and  to  adjust  the  various 
relationships.  Here  it  is  evident  that  Michaiah  is  a  corruption  of 
Maachah)  as  elsewhere  Michaiah  is  a  man's  name.  The  Sept.,  Syriac, 
and  Arabic  versions  read  Maachah. 

In  i  Kings  xv.  2,  Maachah  is  called  '  the  daughter  of  Abishalomj 
which  is  evidently  another  spelling  of  Absalom.  But  Absalom  is  re- 
ported to  have  had  only  one  daughter,  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiv.  27);  and 
therefore  Maachah  must  have  been  grand-daughter  of  Absalom,  and 
not  daughter.  We  are  left  to  assume  that  Tamar  married  Uriel  of 
Gibeah,  and  Maachah  was  the  offspring  of  this  marriage.  She  took 
her  name  from  her  great-grandmother,  Maachah  of  Geshur,  wife  of 
David  and  mother  of  Absalom. 

Joseph  confirms  the  supposition  that  Maachah  was  the  daughter  of 
Tamar.  (Ant.  viii.  10,  i). 

Observe  with  what  simplicity  a  series  of  divergences  may  be 
harmonized.  Here  are  two  forms  of  the  name  Maachah.  Two 
forms  of  the  name  Absalom.  The  assertion  that  Maachah  was  the 
daughter  of  Absalom,  and  the  assertion  that  Maachah  was  the 
daughter  of  Uriel.  And  yet  every  difficulty  fades  away  when  the 
indistinctness  of  Eastern  relationships  is  once  recognised,  and  daughter 
is  in  the  one  case  understood  to  mean  grand-daughter. 

Very  many  similar  difficulties  in  the  historical  books  simply  need  a 
similar  common-sense  treatment. 

Solomon's  Ascent  to  the  Temple. 

i  KINGS  x.  5  :  '  And  his  ascent  by  which  he  went  up  unto  the  house  of  the 
Lord.' 

Question. — Is  there  any  independent  information  at  command, 
which  will  help  us  to  understand  what  this  so-called  '  ascent '  was  ? 

Answer. — There  is  a  preliminary  difficulty  which  must  be  con- 
sidered. The  word  translated  *  ascent,'  in  this  passage,  is  not  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  the  word  translated  *  ascent '  in  2  Chron.  ix.  4. 
Strictly  the  word  found  in  Kings  should  be  rendered,  '  and  his  burnt 


SOLOMON'S  ASCENT  TO  THE  TEMPLE.         139 

offering.5  This  rendering  is  placed  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version,  as  an  alternative  reading.  The  difference  between  the 
original  words  is,  however,  so  slight,  that  it  is  probably  due  to  an 
error  of  the  copyist  The  authors  of  the  Revised  Version  have 
recognised  this,  and  preferred  to  harmonize  the  text  in  Kings  with 
that  in  Chronicles.  Some  kind  of  building  certainly  suits  better  the 
very  material  things  with  which  the  ascent  is  associated  in  this  verse. 
There  was  nothing  specially  to  surprise  the  Queen  of  Sheba  in  Solomon's 
mode  of  sacrificing  burnt  offerings. 

Assuming  that  some  sort  of  erection,  of  a  novel  character,  is  meant, 
we  may  choose  between  the  following  suggestions.  Archdeacon 
Farrar  says  :  '  As  the  palace  stood  on  a  lower  elevation  than  the 
Temple,  the  king  built  for  his  private  use  a  staircase  of  the  red  and 
scented  sandal-wood,  which  now  became  an  article  of  import  for  the 
wealthy.  This  precious  staircase  led  to  the  seats  in  the  Temple, 
which  were  specially  used  for  the  king  on  state  occasions,  of  which 
one  seems  to  have  stood  in  the  inner  court  surrounded  by  a  balus- 
trade, and  another  was  supported  on  a  platform  or  pediment  of 
brass.'  (See  2  Kings  xi.  14;  xvi.  18;  xxiii.  3  ;  2  Chron.  vi.  13.) 

Lewin,  in  his  work  '  Jerusalem,'  says :  *  The  palace  of  Solomon 
was  below  the  Temple  platform,  and  in  laying  the  solid  foundations 
of  Millo,  provision  had  been  made  for  a  double  passage  from  the 
palace  to  the  Temple,  about  250  feet  long  and  42  feet  wide,  formed 
of  bevelled  stones,  and  rising  by  a  gentle  incline  to  one  of  the  gates 
of  the  inner  Temple.  This  marvellous  subterranean  approach,  im- 
pregnable from  its  nature  to  the  ravages  of  time,  still  remains,  though 
painfully  disfigured :  it  is  called,  to  this  day,  the  Temple  of 
Solomon.' 

Porter  gives  an  account  of  the  recent  discoveries,  which  appear  to 
throw  light  on  the  question  before  us,  but  suggest  quite  a  different 
explanation  :  *  The  palace  of  King  Solomon  was  built  on  Mount 
Zion,  while  the  Temple  stood  on  the  summit  of  Moriah.  Between 
these  two  hills  was  a  deep  valley  or  ravine.  Recent  research  has 
brought  to  light  the  remains  of  a  colossal  bridge  which  spanned  this 
ravine,  and  connected  the  palace  and  the  Temple.  It  must  have 
been  one  of  the  most  splendid  architectural  works  in  the  Holy  City. 
The  masonry  is  unquestionably  Jewish,  but  of  what  period  of  Jewish 
rule  cannot  be  yet  said  to  have  been  fully  ascertained.  One  of  the 
stones  in  the  fragment  of  the  arch  still  remaining  measures  twenty- 
four  feet  in  length,  and  another  twenty.  Calculating  by  the  curve 
of  the  arch,  and  the  distance  from  the  Temple  wall  to  the  rocky  side 
of  Mount  Zion  opposite,  the  bridge  when  complete  would  seem  to 


140      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

have  been  composed  of  five  arches,  each  about  forty-one  feet  in  span  ; 
and  its  elevation  above  the  bottom  of  the  ravine  could  scarcely  have 
been  less  than  a  hundred  feet.  The  first  definite  mention  of  this 
bridge  is  in  connection  with  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey, 
twenty  years  before  Herod  ascended  the  throne.  It  was  not,  there- 
fore, a  work  of  Herod.  It  was  built  long  before  his  day.  There  are 
no  data,  however,  by  which  to  connect  it  with  the  "ascent"  of 
Solomon.  The  Hebrew  word  is  correctly  rendered  "ascent,"  and  it 
may  either  be  by  stairs  or  otherwise.  The  same  ascent  is  apparently 
referred  to  in  i  Chron.  xxvi.  16  :  "To  Shuppim  and  Hosah  the  lot 
came  forth  westward,  at  the  gate  Shallecheth,  by  the  causeway  of  the 
going  up"  The  word  translated  "  causeway  "  means  a  viaduct  of  any 
kind,  and  then  a  staircase.  Would  it  not  strike  one,  on  reading  the 
whole  narratives,  that  some  very  remarkable  approach  to  the  Temple 
is  referred  to  by  the  sacred  writers ;  and  that  it  was  in  some  way 
appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  king  ?  If  such  a  bridge  as  that,  whose 
ruins  are  now  seen,  existed  in  Solomon's  day,  it  would,  unquestion- 
ably, make  a  profound  impression  on  the  mind  of  the  Queen  of 
Sheba.' 

The  Pharaoh  who  Advanced  Joseph. 

GENESIS  xli.  14  :  '  Then  Pharaoh  sent  and  called  Joseph,  and  they  brought  him 
hastily  out  of  the  dungeon.' 

Question. — Have  recent  researches  settled  whether  this  Pharaoh 
was>  or  was  not,  one  of  the  Hyksos  sovereigns  ? 

Answer. — Difficulty  in  coming  to  a  decision  is  created  by  the 
condition  of  the  Egyptian  dynastic  records.  We  have  the  names  of 
the  1 2th  dynasty,  closing  with  Amenemha  IV.,  B.C.  2266.  Then  for 
500  years  there  is  a  break,  during  which  the  dynasties  13  to  17  were 
established.  The  '  Shepherd  Kings '  come  in  somewhere  during  this 
500  years.  The  list  is  resumed  with  the  i8th  dynasty,  the  first  name 
being  Ahmes,  B.C.  1700. 

Professor  George  Rawlinson  says  :  '  How  long  the  Egyptians  groaned 
under  the  tyranny  of  the  "  Shepherds,"  it  is  difficult  to  say.  The 
epitomists  of  Manetho  are  hopelessly  at  variance  on  the  subject,  and 
the  monuments  are  silent,  or  nearly  so.  Moderns  vary  in  the  time 
which  they  assign  to  the  period,  between  two  centuries  and  five. 
There  is  but  one  dynasty  of  "  Shepherd  Kings  "  that  has  any  distinct 
historical  substance,  or  to  which  we  can  assign  any  names.  This  is 
a  dynasty  of  six  kings  only,  whose  united  reigns  are  not  likely  to  have 
exceeded  two  centuries.  After  the  dynasty  had  borne  rule  for  five 
reigns,  covering  the  space  perhaps  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  a 


THE  PHARAOH  WHO  ADVANCED  JOSEPH.     141 

king  came  to  the  throne  named  Apepi,  who  has  left  several  monu- 
ments, and  is  the  only  one  of  the  "  shepherds  "  that  stands  out  for  us 
in  definite  historical  consistency  as  a  living  and  breathing  person. 
Apepi  built  a  great  temple  to  Sutekh  at  Zoan  or  Tanis,  his  principal 
city,  composed  of  blocks  of  red  granite,  and  adorned  it  with  obelisks 
and  sphinxes.  The  pacific  rule  of  Apepi  and  his  predecessors 
allowed  Thebes  to  increase  in  power,  and  her  monuments  now  re- 
commence.' 

There  was  an  ancient  tradition,  that  the  king  who  made  Joseph 
his  prime  minister,  and  committed  into  his  hands  the  entire  ad- 
ministration of  Egypt,  was  Apepi.  George  Syncellus  says  that  the 
synchronism  was  accepted  by  all.  It  is  clear  that  Joseph's  arrival 
did  not  fall,  like  Abraham's,  into  the  period  of  the  Old  Empire,  since 
under  Joseph  horses  and  chariots  are  in  use,  as  well  as  waggons  or 
carts,  all  of  which  were  unknown  until  after  the  Hyksos  invasion. 
It  is  also  more  natural  that  Joseph,  a  foreigner,  should  have  been 
advanced  by  a  foreign  king  than  by  a  native  one,  and  the  favour 
shown  to  his  brethren,  who  were  shepherds,  is  consonant  at  any  rate 
with  the  tradition  that  it  was  a  '  Shepherd  King '  who  held  the  throne 
at  the  time  of  their  arrival.  A  priest  of  Heliopolis,  moreover,  would 
scarcely  have  given  Joseph  his  daughter  in  marriage  unless  at  a  time 
when  the  priesthood  was  in  a  state  of  depression.  Add  to  this  that 
the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph  is  evidently  resident  in  Lower  Egypt,  not  at 
Thebes,  which  was  the  seat  of  government  for  many  hundred  years 
both  before  and  after  the  Hyksos  rule. 

If,  however,  we  are  to  place  Joseph  under  one  of  the  *  Shepherd 
Kings,'  there  can  be  no  reason  why  we  should  not  accept  the  tradi- 
tion which  connects  him  with  Apepi.  Apepi  was  dominant  over  the 
whole  of  Egypt,  as  Joseph's  Pharaoh  seems  to  have  been.  He 
acknowledged  a  single  god,  as  did  that  monarch  (Gen.  xli.  38,  39). 
He  was  a  thoroughly  Egyptianized  king.  He  had  a  council  of 
.earned  Scribes,  a  magnificent  court,  and  a  peaceful  reign  until  towards 
its  close.  His  residence  was  in  the  Delta,  either  at  Tanis,  or  Avaris. 
He  was  a  prince  of  a  strong  will,  firm  and  determined ;  one  who  did 
lot  shrink  from  initiating  great  changes,  and  who  carried  out  his 
•esolves  in  a  somewhat  arbitrary  way.  The  arguments  in  favour  of 
lis  identity  with  Joseph's  master  are,  perhaps,  not  wholly  conclusive ; 
3ut  they  raise  a  presumption,  which  may  well  incline  us,  with  most 
nodern  historians  of  Egypt,  to  assign  the  touching  story  of  Joseph 

0  the  reign  of  the  last  of  the  shepherds. 

Canon  Bell,  in  his  interesting  work  '  A  Winter  on  the  Nile,'  reports 

1  visit  to  Bubastis,  the  Pi-beseth  of  the  Bible,  in  order  to  examine 


i42      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  excavations  proceeding  under  the  direction  of  M.  Naville,  and 
quotes  the  following  passage  from  a  letter  sent  by  M.  Naville  to  the 
Times,  of  April  6,  1888  : 

'  Our  most  important  discovery  up  to  the  present  time  was  made 
yesterday  morning.  I  had  noticed  on  Friday  the  corner  of  a  block 
of  polished  black  granite  which  I  thought  might  belong  to  some  good 
monument,  and  I  had  it  unearthed  yesterday.  It  proved  to  be  the 
lower  half  of  a  life-size  figure  of  very  beautiful  workmanship,  with 
two  columns  of  finely-cut  hieroglyphics,  engraved  down  each  side  of 
the  front  of  the  throne  to  right  and  left  of  the  legs  of  the  statue. 
These  inscriptions  give  the  name  and  titles  of  an  absolutely  unknown 
king,  who,  judging  from  the  work,  must  belong  to  the  Hyksos  period, 
or,  at  all  events,  to  one  of  the  obscure  dynasties  preceding  the 
Hyksos  invasion.  I  forward  a  copy  of  the  inscriptions.  One  car- 
touche contains  a  sign  which  is  quite  new  to  me,  and  which  I  there- 
fore cannot  decipher.  The  other  reads  "  Jan-Ra,"  or  "  Ra-ian  " — a 
name  unlike  any  I  have  ever  seen.  He  is  described,  most  strangely, 
as  the  worshipper  of  his  Ka  (i.e.,  his  ghost,  or  double).  .  .  .  Since 
writing  the  above,  I  have  been  over  to  Boulak,  and  have  shown  my 
copy  of  the  inscriptions  to  Ahmed-Kemaled  Deen  Effendi,  the 
Mohammedan  official  attached  to  the  museum.  He  was  deeply 
interested,  and  said  at  once,  "  That  is  the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph.  All 
our  Arab  books  call  him  Reiydn,  the  son  of  El  Welid."  He  then 
wrote  the  name  for  me  in  Arabic,  which  I  enclose  herewith.  For  my 
own  part,  I  know  nothing  of  Arab  literature  or  Arab  tradition.  I 
should  not,  however,  be  disposed  to  attach  much  weight  to  this 
curious  coincidence.  Still  it  is  curious,  and  certainly  interesting.' 

Canon  Bell  adds  :  *  It  may  be  well  not  to  be  too  hasty  in  concluding 
that  the  statue  with  the  cartouche,  on  which  is  the  name  Jan-Ra,  is 
Joseph's  Pharaoh,  but  it  is  possible  that  it  is  ;  and  Mr.  F.  D.  Griffith, 
student  attached  to  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  furnishes  some 
additional  evidence  bearing  on  this  possibility.  He  says  :  "  The  only 
Hyksos  (shepherd)  monument  in  the  British  Museum  is  a  small  lion 
in  the  northern  vestibule.  This  monument  is  of  Hyksos  style,  and 
bears  a  name  that  hitherto  has  baffled  students.  It  is  very  in- 
distinctly engraved.  On  examining  it  I  feel  convinced  that  the  name 
is  the  singularly  written  throne  name  of  Raian,  as  inscribed  on  the 
seat  of  the  statue  discovered  by  M.  Naville.  -The  date  thus  obtained 
is  in  harmony  with  the  general  opinion  that  Joseph  ruled  Egypt  under 
one  or  more  of  the  Hyksos  Pharaohs,"  ' 


NAAMAN'S  COMPROMISE.  143 


Naaman's   Compromise. 

2  KINGS  v.  1 8  :  'In  this  thing  the  Lord  pardon  thy  servant,  that  when  my 
master  goeth  into  the  house  of  Rimmon  to  worship  there,  and  he  leaneth  on  my 
Hand,  and  I  bow  myself  in  the  house  of  Rimmon  ;  when  I  bow  down  myself  in  the 
:iouse  of  Rimmon,  the  Lord  pardon  thy  servant  in  this  thing.' 

Difficulty. — Can  we  conceive  of  God  as  willing  to  accept  private 
religion  which  a  man  was  unwilling  to  let  influence  his  official  rela- 
tions ? 

Explanation. — Naaman's  was  but  an  imperfect  conversion. 
To  his  mind  Jehovah  was  simply  the  god  of  the  country ;  one  among 
the  many  gods  of  the  many  countries.  He  had  even  paid  Jehovah 
some  respect  by  being  willing  to  submit  his  case  to  His  consideration. 
In  the  sudden  impulse  of  gratitude,  he  was  prepared  to  recognise 
Jehovah  as  a  superior  God,  as  even  the  supreme  God.  But,  if  he 
had  been  truly  converted — changed  in  heart — he  would  not  have 
taken  into  consideration  the  peril  of  losing  his  official  position  through 
loyalty  to  Jehovah.  Like  all  imperfectly  converted  persons,  Naaman 
wanted  his  new  religion  to  keep  away  from  his  life  and  relations.  He 
was  willing  to  have  it  as  a  private  enjoyment.  And  true  religion 
will  not  come  to  a  man  at  all,  unless  the  man  is  willing  to  let  it  be  a 
life-controlling  force.  Naaman  would  not  keep  his  Jehovah-religion 
long,  if  he  went  bowing  with  his  master  in  the  house  of  Rimmon. 
The  Prophet  Elisha  in  no  way  expresses  approval  of  his  suggestion. 
Elisha's  *  go  in  peace  '  is  merely  a  polite  farewell,  with  the  intimation 
that,  on  the  question  of  bowing  to  Rimmon,  he  has  nothing  to  say. 
The  history  tells  us  no  more  about  Naaman,  and  we  should  always 
bear  in  mind  that  narratives  introduced  into  Scripture  concerning 
heathen  lands  or  persons,  are  never  introduced  for  their  sakes,  but 
only  for  the  sake  of  the  influence  these  had  on  God's  people. 
Naaman's  story  was  an  impressive  declaration  of  Jehovah's  power  to 
help ;  and  it  was  made  all  the  more  impressive  because  it  concerned 
the  chief  captain  of  one  of  the  national  enemies. 

The  request  of  Naaman  for  '  two  mules'  burden  of  earth '  is  ex- 
plained by  the  common  notion  of  the  day,  that  the  power  and  in- 
fluence of  each  god  was  limited  to  the  soil  of  the  country  to  which 
he  belonged.  So  by  carrying  the  soil  of  Canaan  to  Syria,  and 
standing  on  it  when  he  prayed  to  Jehovah,  Naaman  thought  he  could 
ensure  the  acceptableness  of  his  prayers  and  worship.  Elisha  ex- 
pressed no  sort  of  approval  of  this  notion.  Indeed,  his  relations 
with  Naaman  were  almost  curt.  He  evidently  did  not  feel  it  any 
duty  of  his  to  rejoice  over  this  sudden  convert  to  Jehovah.  He  had 


144      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

done  his  duty  to  God  in  cleansing  the  man  ;  but  he  did  not  wish  to 
have  any  more  to  do  with  him. 

Dr.  Lumby  sees  more  in  Elisha's  simple  answer  to  Naaman  than 
we  do,  but,  in  general,  he  supports  the  explanation  given  above. 
'Naaman  can  see  the  inconsistency  of  his  conduct.  He  will  offer 
no  more  sacrifices  to  Rimmon.  But  the  king  his  master  worships  in 
Rimmon's  temple,  and  Naaman  must  be  in  attendance,  and  must 
bow  when  the  king  bows  down,  or  he  will  give  offence.  He  sets  his 
difficulty  before  Elisha,  and  Elisha,  regarding  the  degree  of  his  faith 
and  obedience  as  all  that  could  be  expected  from  his  amount  of 
light,  gives  him  a  comforting  answer.  We  must  judge  both  Naaman 
and  the  prophet  according  to  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  It  was 
impossible  for  the  former  at  once  to  cast  away  all  his  old  ideas.  His 
strongest  wish,  for  some  of  the  soil  of  the  holy  land  to  carry  home, 
bespeaks  the  darkness  in  which  he  had  lived  and  was  living,  and 
a  new  creature  is  not  to  be  made  in  a  moment  out  of  men  like 
Naaman.  Elisha,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  light  such  as  we  have 
concerning  God's  message  to  the  heathen ;  the  Jew  has  not,  either  in 
ancient  or  in  modern  times,  been  a  missionary,  and  we  need  not  judge 
Elisha  hardly,  because  he  felt  no  call  to  rebuke  the  half-converted 
heathen  for  his  imperfect  service.  The  Lord  had  not  yet  given  His 
message  to  any  of  the  chosen  people — "  Go  ye  out  into  all  the  world." 
.  .  .  We  are  not  to  consider  Elisha's  answer  as  implying  that  service 
of  God  and  service  of  Rimmon  might  be  combined  without  any  in- 
congruity. The  prophet  appears  rather  to  be  willing  to  leave  the  good 
seed  already  sown  to  bear  fruit  in  due  season.' 

Geikie  treats  Elisha's  answer  as  an  approval  of  the  suggested  com- 
promise. '  It  is  in  keeping  with  the  ideas  of  the  age,  that  the  grateful 
Syrian  should  ask  leave  to  carry  back  to  Damascus  two  mules'  burden 
of  earth  to  build  an  altar  to  Jehovah  on  the  soil  of  his  own  land  :  on 
which  alone,  men  would  then  think,  He  could  be  rightly  honoured. 
The  altar,  moreover,  would  be  a  memorial  to  the  God  of  Israel  in  a 
foreign  land,  like  the  synagogue  raised,  ages  later,  by  the  Jews  of 
Nahardea,  in  Persia,  all  the  stones  and  earth  of  which  had  been 
brought  from  Jerusalem.  He  makes  only  one  request  more,  and 
this  the  prophet,  with  a  fine  anticipation  of  Christian  charity,  tacitly 
grants.  When  his  master,  leaning  on  his  arm,  required  him  to  go 
into  the  temple  of  Rimmon,  and  he  had  to  prostrate  himself  before 
the  god ;  he  trusted  it  would  not  be  reckoned  disloyalty  to  Jehovah, 
whom  alone  he  would  henceforth  worship.' 

Matt.  Henry  says  :  *  Naaman's  dissembling  his  religion  cannot  be 
approved ;  yet  by  promising  to  offer  no  sacrifice  to  any  but  the  God 


NAAMAN'S  COMPROMISE.  145 

of  Israel,  and  by  asking  pardon  in  this  matter,  he  showed  such 
ingenuousness  as  gave  hope  of  further  improvement;  and  young 
converts  must  be  tenderly  dealt  with.' 

Kitto  strongly  objects  to  the  idea  that  Naaman  proposed  to  build 
an  altar  with  the  earth.  Such  an  idea  was  not  likely  to  enter 
Naarnan's  mind.  *  If  we  look  to  the  uses  to  which  the  Easterns 
apply  the  soil  of  places  accounted  holy,  it  is  possible  we  may  discover 
the  right  reason  for  Naaman's  singular  request.  To  Mohammedans 
the  sacred  soil  is  that  of  Mecca  ;  and  the  man  accounts  himself 
happy  who  has  in  possession  the  smallest  portion  of  it  for  use  in  his 
devotions.  He  carries  it  about  his  person  in  a  small  bag ;  and  in  his 
prayers  he  deposits  this  before  him  upon  the  ground  in  such  a  manner 
that,  in  his  frequent  prostrations,  the  head  comes  down  upon  this 
morsel  of  sacred  soil,  so  that  in  some  sort  he  may  be  said  to  worship 
thereon.  May  it  not  be  that  Naaman  contemplated  forming,  with 
this  larger  portion  of  the  soil  of  the  sacred  land,  a  spot  on  which  he 
might  offer  up  his  devotions  to  the  God  of  Israel  ?' 

Burder  suggests  that  Naaman  may  have  asked  for  the  earth  with  a 
view  to  purification,  and  gives  the  following  illustrations :  '  If  the 
Arab  Algerines  cannot  come  by  any  water,  then  they  must  wipe 
themselves  as  clean  as  they  can,  or  they  must  smooth  their  hands 
over  a  stone  two  or  three  times,  and  rub  them  one  with  the  other  as 
if  they  were  washing  with  water.'  In  a  Mohammedan  treatise  on 
prayer,  it  is  said  :  '  In  case  water  is  not  to  be  had,  that  defect  may 
be  supplied  with  earth,  a  stone,  or  any  other  product  of  earth,  and 
this  is  called  tayamum,  and  is  performed  by  cleaning  the  insides  of 
the  hands  upon  the  same,  rubbing  therewith  the  face  once ;  and  then 
again  rubbing  the  hands  upon  the  earth -stone,  or  whatever  it  be, 
stroking  the  right  arm  to  the  elbow  with  the  left  hand,  and  so  the  left 
with  the  right.' 

Canon  Rawlinson  deals  very  considerately  both  with  Naaman  and 
with  Elisha.  '  Naaman  was  not  prepared  to  offend  his  master,  either 
by  refusing  to  enter  with  him  into  the  temple  of  Rimmon,  or  by 
remaining  erect  when  the  king  bowed  down  and  worshipped  the  god. 
His  conscience  seems  to  have  told  him  that  such  conduct  was  not 
right ;  but  he  trusted  that  it  might  be  pardoned,  and  he  appealed  to 
the  prophet  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  from  him  an  assurance  to  this 
effect.  Elisha  avoided  any  expression  of  either  approval  or  dis- 
approval. He  saw  Naaman's  weakness,  but  did  not  feel  that  it  was 
necessary  to  rebuke  it.  Perhaps  he  was  wrong  not  to  be  harder  and 
more  uncompromising,  for  the  Old  Testament  saints  are  far  from 
perfect  characters.  He  was  tender  and  soft-hearted,  not  stern  and 

10 


146      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

rugged,  like  Elijah.  He  was  drawn  to  the  new  convert,  and  inclined 
to  hope  the  best  for  him.  Moreover,  he  had  no  distinct  message  to 
the  heathen,  and  no  means  of  knowing  with  any  certainty  what  God 
would  require  of  them.  Elisha  may  be  pardoned  if  he  did  not 
himself  clearly  see  the  obligation  of  the  convert  to  refuse  all  partici- 
pation in  idolatry.'  '  As  a  parting  benediction,  he  wished  that 
Jehovah's  peace  might  rest  on  the  Syrian  general,  and  thus  committed 
him  to  the  Divine  guidance  without  answering  his  closing  words.' 

South  calls  the  truth  '  that  we  are  neither  to  worship  or  cringe  to 
anything  under  the  Deity,  a  truth  too  strict  for  a  Naaman  ;  he  can  be 
content  to  worship  the  one  true  God,  but  then  it  must  be  in  the 
house  of  Rimmon.  The  reason  was  implied  in  his  condition  ;  he 
was  captain  of  the  host,  and  therefore  he  thought  it  reason  good  to 
bow  to  Rimmon  rather  than  endanger  his  place ;  better  bow  than 
break.' 

Porter's  summary  of  the  narrative  may  be  regarded  as  satisfactory. 
'  Naaman  was  no  true  convert  to  Judaism.  He  had  experienced  the 
omnipotent  power  of  the  God  of  Israel :  he  resolved  henceforth  to 
acknowledge  God  as  Supreme  God,  but  he  would  not  go  so  far  as  to 
give  up  his  rank,  or  to  risk  his  worldly  power,  by  refusing  to  join  with 
his  sovereign  in  the  worship  of  an  idol.  He  was  an  intellectual 
convert,  but  his  heart  remained  untouched  by  Divine  grace.  Even 
his  knowledge  was  yet  very  imperfect.  His  old  superstitious  feelings 
remain,  though  they  have  received  a  new  object.  He  thinks  Jehovah 
can  only  be  worshipped  aright  on  the  soil  over  which  He  specially 
ruled.  We  are  not  informed  whether  he  was  ever  fully  instructed,  or 
whether  the  germs  of  intellectual  belief  implanted  in  his  mind  were 
ever  changed  by  the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit  into  saving  faith. 
Elisha's  answer  to  the  plausible,  but  really  humiliating,  plea  of 
Naaman  throws  no  light  on  this  point.  "  Go  in  peace,"  was,  and  is 
still  in  the  East,  the  ordinary  parting  salutation.  It  neither  approves 
nor  disapproves  of  Naaman's  pleas  or  plans.' 

The  Site  of  Ebenezer. 

I  SAMUEL  iv.  i  :  *  Now  Israel  went  out  against  the  Philistines  to  battle,  and 
pitched  beside  Ebenezer  :  and  the  Philistines  pitched  in  Aphek.' 

Question. — Has  it  been  found  possible  to  recover •,  with  any  certainty ', 
//•  ?  precise  situation  of  Ebenezer  ? 

Answer. — The  following  suggestions,  made  by  Dr.  T.  Chaplin^ 
appeared  in  one  of  the  '  Palestine  Exploration  Fund '  reports.  A 
critical  note  on  the  theory,  or  proposed  identification,  is  added  by 
Capt.  C.  £.  Conder. 


THE  SITE  OF  EBENEZER.  147 

Many  years  ago,  after  considerable  study  of  the  subject  and 
'epeated  examination  of  the  ground,  I  formed  the  opinion  that  the 
place  of  Ebenezer  is  now  occupied  by  the  village  of  Beit  Iksa,  and, 
notwithstanding  that  another  site  has  been  advocated  by  distinguished 
investigators,  I  still  venture  to  think  that  this  is  the  only  spot  which 
satisfactorily  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the  case. 

1.  The  spot  should  be  '  between  Mizpah  and  Shen,'  and,  as  we 
tnay  suppose,  be  a  prominent  and  conspicuous  spot.     Such  a  spot  is 
Beit  Iksa.     Taking  Neby  Samwil  to  be  Mizpah,  and  Deir  Yesin  to 
represent  Shen,  an  examination  of  the  map  will  show  that  a  line 
drawn  from  one  to  the  other  would  intersect  this  village.     It  is  also 
remarkable  that,  owing  to  an  opening  in  the  hills,  a  person  standing 
at  Deir  Yesin  and  looking  towards  Neby  Samwil  has  Beit  Iksa  in  full 
view,  although  at  a  short  distance  to  the  right  or  left  it  is  not  visible 
at  all.     From  many  other  points  it  is  very  conspicuous,  owing  to  its 
position  near  the  summit  of  a  hill  abutting  on  the  great  valley  of  Beit 
Hannina,  which  is  there  very  open. 

2.  The  locality  should  be  adapted  for  the  camping-ground  of  a 
large  army  (i  Sam.  iv.  i),  have  a  supply  of  water,  be  easily  defensible, 
50  situated  as  to  render  communications  with  the  interior  of  the 
Israelite  territory  easy,  and  afford  a  ready  means  of  retreat  in  the 
2vent  of  an  unsuccessful  battle  with  the  Philistine  invaders.     All 
;hese  characterize  the  position  of  Beit  Iksa.     The  hill  on  which  it  is 
)uilt  is  nearly  surrounded  by  deep  valleys,  whose  steep,  and  in  some 
Darts  precipitous,  sides  render  the  place  almost  impregnable  in  that 
direction,  whilst  a  narrow  ridge  connects  it  with  the  only  road  along 
vhich  the  Philistines  could  march  to  the  attack,  which  road,  more- 
over, would  expose  the  flank  of  the  attacking  force  to  an  assault  from 
;he  side  of  Mizpah.     There  is  some  water  at  the  place  itself,  still 
nore  at  Neby  Samwil,  and  an  unlimited  supply  at  the  neighbouring 
buntain  of  Lifta,  which  must  have  been  well  within  the  Israelite  lines. 

3.  There  should  be  in  the  near  neighbourhood  some  spot  meriting 
he  name  of  Aphek,  the  stronghold,  in  which  the  Philistines  could 
;ecurely  encamp,  and  from  which  they  could  make  their  attack  on 
he  Israelite  position.     Such  a  spot  is  Kustul,  castellum,  which  com- 
nands  the  modern  road  between  Jerusalem  and  Jaffa.     To  the  north 
>f  the  miserable  hamlet  called  by  this  name  there  is  a  broad  plateau 
vhich  affords  evidence  of  having  been  used  for  a  camping-ground  in 
indent  times,  being  still  surrounded  by  the  remains  of  a  rampart  of 
arge  stones.     From  this  position  the  Philistines  could  march  in  great 
security  along  the  summit  of  the  hill,  past  the  site  of  the  present  Beit 
Surik,  until  they  came  to  where  Biddu  now  is,  when  turning  to  the 

10 — 2 


148      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

right  they  could  direct  their  attack  against  either  Mizpah  or  an  enemy 
on  the  hill  to  the  south,  where  Beit  Iksa  is  situated. 

4.  The  place  should  be  so  situated  that  a   runner  could  reach 
Shiloh  from  it  in  a  few  hours.     '  There  ran  a  man  of  Benjamin  out 
of  the  army  and  came  to  Shiloh  the  same  day]  bearing  news  of  the 
defeat  of  the  Israelites,  and  loss  of  the  ark.     From  Beit  Iksa  this 
might  be  accomplished  by  an  eager  and  active  messenger  in  four 
hours,  or  less  ;  the  distance  being  about  eighteen  miles.     From  Deir 
Aban  Shiloh  is  eleven  or  twelve  miles  further. 

5.  Mizpah  should  be  so  situated  that  an  attacking  force,  if  badly 
beaten,  seized  with  panic,  and  thinking  only  of  escape  to  its   own 
territory  in  the  south-western  plain,  would  naturally  flee  down  the 
valley  which  passes  *  under  Beth  Car,'  and  that  the  pursuing  Israelites, 
especially   if   they   happened   to    be    imperfectly  armed    (Josephus, 
Ant.,  6,  2,    2),  would  not  deem  it  prudent  to  follow  the  fugitives 
further  than  that.     The  valley  which  divides  the  hill  of  Beit  Surik 
from  that  on  which  Beit  Iksa  stands  affords  such  a  means  of  retreat 
from  Neby  Samwil,  and  it  was  probably  down  this  valley,  past  'Am 
el  'Alik  and  'Ain  Beit  Tulma,  that  the  terrified  Philistines  (2  Sam.  vii. 
10,  1 1)  reached  the  great  watercourse  which  they  knew  would  conduct 
them  to  their  own  country.     Pressed  by  their  pursuers,  they  would 
rush  on  by  Motza  (Kulonieh)  under  their  late  camping-ground  at 
Aphek,  over  the  boulders  and  rocks  in  the  bed  of  the  wady,  and 
through  the  olive  gardens  at  its  sides,  until  they  came  '  under  Beth 
Car,'  which  may  be  taken  to  be  the  village  now  called  'Ain  Karim, 
where  their  foes  would  give  up  the  pursuit,  lest,  becoming  entangled 
in  the  narrow  and  stony  valley,  they  should  expose  themselves  to 
great  risk  in  the  event  of  the  discomfited  host  rallying  and  turning 
upon  them. 

It  may  be  objected  to  this  identification  that  Neby  Samwil  has 
never  been  proved  to  be  Mizpah,  Deir  Yesin  Shen,  or  'Ain  Karim 
Beth  Car.  Yet,  when  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
events  narrated  being  taken  together  support  this  theory ;  when  it  is 
found  that  the  ancient  names  of  two  of  the  places  are  still  retained 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  position  of  Neby  Samwil  and  the 
tradition  connecting  it  with  that  prophet  are  by  almost  all  investigator? 
held  to  favour  the  supposition  that  it  is  Mizpah  ;  and  when  it  i< 
considered  that  the  identification  of  each  of  these  four  places  in  <r 
very  remarkable  manner  supports  that  of  the  others,  there  is  surely  t 
strong  presumption  that  we  need  go  no  further  in  search  of  the  site 
of  this  famous  monument  of  the  last  of  Israel's  Judges. 

It  may  not  be  altogether  idle  to  inquire  why  Samuel  placed  hi.' 


THE  SITE  OF  EBENEZER.  149 

memorial  *  between  Mizpah  and  Shen  '  instead  of  at  Mizpah.  The 
latter  was  not  only  a  very  conspicuous  spot,  as  its  name  implies,  but 
it  was  also  a  seat  of  government,  and  a  centre  of  the  religious  life  of 
the  people.  It  was  not  to  Shiloh,  where  the  Tabernacle  was,  but  to 
Mizpah  that  Samuel  gathered  all  Israel  and  drew  water  and  poured  it 
out  before  the  Lord  and  prayed  to  the  Lord  for  them.  Perhaps  the 
answer  to  such  an  inquiry  is,  that  he  placed  his  monument  where  the 
ark  of  God  had  once  stood.  We  are  taught  in  the  second  Book  of 
the  Chronicles  (viii.  n),  that  a  place  whereunto  the  ark  of  the  Lord 
had  come  was  regarded  as  holy,  and  what  more  natural,  after  the 
signal  deliverance  which  had  been  experienced,  than  that  the  great 
ruler  and  guide  of  the  nation  should  erect  '  the  stone  of  help  '  upon 
the  spot  once  sanctified  by  the  sacred  emblem  of  the  Divine  strength  ? 
Josephus  tells  us  the  stone  was  called  /<r%upo?,  « the  stone  of  strength' 
In  Psalm  Ixxviii.  61,  we  have,  'And  delivered  his  strength  (i.e.,  the 
ark)  into  captivity ;'  and  again  in  2  Chron.  vi.  41,  '  Arise,  O  Lord 
God,  into  Thy  resting-place,  Thou  and  the  ark  of  Thy  strength  /  in 
the  Septuagint,  ^  xifSuroc  T^S  Iffyjjpoc.  cw.  If  the  memorial  came  to  be 
called  in  late  times  by  its  Greek  name,  it  is  not  impossible  that  in 
Iksa,  a  word  the  derivation  of  which  no  one  seems  to  know,  we  have 
a  corruption  of  ischuros,  like  Amwas  of  Emmaus,  Nablus  of  Neapolis. 
I  have  heard  the  place  called  Beit  Iska,  and  a  Mohammedan  sheikh 
once  told  me  that  that  is  the  right  name.  The  point  is  not  of 
importance.  The  tendency  of  the  Arabs  to  transpose  consonants  is 
well  known. 

It  would  seem  that  this  idea  of  Ebenezer  having  marked  the  place 
on  which  the  ark  was  once  set,  misled  Eusebius  and  his  translator 
into  supposing  that  the  monument  occupied  the  spot  to  which  the 
Philistines  brought  back  the  ark.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  there  is 
no  indication  of  this  in  the  Bible ;  and  it  may  reasonably  be  supposed 
that  if  Samuel  had  erected  his  trophy  at  Bethshemesh,  or  in  the  field 
of  Joshua  the  Bethshemite,  the  narrative  would  have  said  so. 

I  have  often  questioned  with  myself  whether  these  struggles  with 
the  Philistines  did  not  (as  some  seem  to  suppose)  take  place  nearer 
to  the  Philistine  frontier  than  Neby  Samwil  and  Beit  Iksa  are.  But 
I  find  no  confirmation  of  this  suggestion  in  the  sacred  text.  Other 
important  battles  against  the  same  foes  took  place  still  further  in  the 
heart  of  the  Israelite  country,  as  at  Michmash  and  on  Mount  Gilboa. 

Note  by  Capt.  C.  R.  Conder. — Dr.  Chaplin  having  kindly  sent  me 
the  proof  of  his  paper  on  Ebenezer,  I  have  only  one  or  two  remarks 
to  offer  on  the  subject. 


150      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

I  do  not  hold  it  to  be  proved  that  Deir  Aban  is  Ebenezer,  but,  as 
I  have  pointed  out  in  the  '  Memoirs,'  Deir  Aban  is  the  place  which 
Jerome  supposed  to  be  Ebenezer.  It  is  quite  possible  that  Jerome 
was  wrong  in  this  as  in  other  cases.  The  site  of  Mizpah  is  uncertain, 
as  it  may  be  either  at  Neby  Samwil,  or  perhaps  at  Shaf  at.  The 
identity  of  Shen  and  Deir  Yasin  seems  to  me  doubtful,  because 
names  with  Deir  preceding  are  usually  of  Christian  origin.  'Am 
Karim  is,  I  believe,  the  Biblical  Beth  Haccerem,  but  it  might  be  Beth 
Car  also.  On  two  occasions  I  have  searched  the  country  south  of 
Neby  Samwil,  hoping  to  find  some  monument  such  as  Ebenezer,  but 
we  never  found  anything  of  the  kind.  I  agree  with  Dr.  Chaplin, 
however,  in  thinking  that  the  distance  from  Deir  Aban  to  Shiloh  is 
an  objection  to  the  fourth  century  traditional  site. 

David's  Introduction  to  Saul's  Court. 

I  SAMUEL  xvi.  21  :  'And  David  came  to  Saul,  and  stood  before  him  ;  and  he 
loved  him  greatly  ;  and  he  became  his  armour-bearer.' 

Difficulty. — As  Saul  had  personal  knowledge  of,  and  interest  t/i, 
David,  his  settlement  at  court  could  not  have  preceded  the  introduction  of 
David  to  Saul  after  the  slaughter  of  Goliath. 

Explanation. — It  is  not  possible,  with  any  amount  of  ingenuity, 
to  fit  into  a  natural  historical  order  the  earliest  records  concerning 
David.  We  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  historical  books  of 
Scripture  are  compilations  of  fragments,  and  chronological  considera- 
tions do  not  seem  to  have  controlled  the  placing  of  them  together. 
One  account  seems  to  deal  with  David's  visits  to  the  court  as  a 
minstrel,  but  how  this  stands  related  to  the  slaughter  of  Goliath, 
which  another  fragment  makes  David's  earliest  introduction  to  Saul, 
does  not  appear.  In  these  cases  it  is  altogether  better  to  deal 
honestly  with  the  records,  and  admit  confusion  of  the  accounts,  the 
earlier  including  relations  to  the  king  and  court,  which,  in  actual  fact, 
occurred  later  on. 

If  an  attempt  might  be  made  to  put  the  passages  in  chronological 
order,  we  should  say  that  the  minstrelsy  of  David  at  the  court 
belongs  to  a  period  some  years  preceding  the  conflict  with  Goliath, 
and  that  David  was  then  quite  a  youth.  While  a  minstrel  only 
David  may  not  have  come  into  personal  contact  with  the  king ;  and 
the  verse  heading  this  paragraph  represents  the  response  to  a  request 
made  of  Jesse  for  David's  entire  service  at  the  court.  This  request 
was  made  after  the  victory  over  Goliath  ;  then  it  was  that  Saul  became 
personally  attached  to  David,  and  made  him  his  armour-bearer.  The 


DAVID'S  INTRODUCTION  TO  SAUL'S  COURT.     151 

narrative  of  the  seventeenth  chapter  is  omitted  from  the  earlier 
fragment,  and  consequently  ch.  xviii.  2  repeats  the  fact,  presented 
under  differing  circumstances  in  ch.  xvi.  22,  that  David  became 
permanently  attached  to  the  court. 

We  then  have  the  following  order :  David  called  to  court  occa- 
sionally as  a  minstrel.  Saul's  mental  condition  improved  for  a 
time.  David  returned  to  his  shepherding.  Some  years  pass  without 
need  for  calling  David,  and  he  is  quite  forgotten.  Incident  of 
Goliath.  David  not  recognised  by  the  officers,  because  much  changed 
in  appearance.  After  the  victory  inquiries  are  made,  and  David 
reminds  the  king  who  he  is,  by  saying,  '  I  am  the  son  of  Jesse,' 
evidently  meaning,  'the  son  of  Jesse  whom,  you  remember,  once 
played  for  you  in  your  illness.'  This  wakening  of  recollections  made 
Saul  resolve  to  have  David  with  him  permanently  at  court,  so  he 
became  first  one  of  the  king's  armour-bearers,  and  then  was  gradually 
advanced  until  he  reached  some  of  the  chief  places  of  trust  and 
honour  in  the  army. 

It  may  not  be  wise  to  assert  that  this  is  the  order  of  events  ;  but 
it  may  be  said  that  this  is  a  reasonable  and  natural  order,  and  may 
be  maintained  without  doing  any  violence  to  the  records,  as  we  have 
them  preserved  in  the  Word. 

R.  F.  Norton  regards  the  narrative  which  is  now  before  us  as  a 
proof  that  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  had  before  him  two 
different  accounts.  He  says :  '  Reading  the  account  of  David's 
introduction  to  Saul  in  i  Sam.  xvi.,  we  first  of  all  hear  of  Samuel 
anointing  David  at  Bethlehem ;  then  at  ch.  xvi.  18,  David  is  brought 
before  the  king  as  not  only  "  cunning  in  playing,"  but  "  a  mighty 
man  of  valour  and  a  man  of  war."  He  stands  before  Saul  because 
he  has  found  favour  in  the  king's  sight.  Then  in  ch.  xvii.  we  are 
surprised  to  meet  with  David  as  a  mere  shepherd  lad  coming  up 
from  the  country  to  the  army,  slaying  Goliath,  and  so  being  intro- 
duced to  Saul  for  the  first  time.  In  fact,  as  he  goes  out  to  the  combat, 
Saul  sends  Abner  to  inquire  who  he  is  ;  and  in  consequence  of  this 
episode  the  young  man  is  enlisted  in  the  king's  service.  Now  there 
cannot  be  any  reasonable  doubt  that  this  confusion  arises  from  the 
existence  of  two  accounts  of  David's  first  introduction  to  Saul. 
According  to  the  one,  he  was  sought  out  in  Saul's  mental  distress  as 
a  cunning  player  on  the  harp.  According  to  the  other,  he  attracted 
the  king's  attention  by  an  act  of  heroic  valour  in  the  army.  So 
distinct  are  these  accounts,  that  even  in  the  welded  narrative,  it  is 
quite  easy  to  separate  them.  Read  ch.  xvi.  14-33  an^  tnen  g°  on  at 
ch.  xviii.  6,  and  you  see  you  have  a  straightforward  narrative  :  the 


152      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

section  ch.  xvii-xviii.  5  appears  plainly  as  a  separate  piece  coming  no 
doubt  from  a  separate  source.' 

Edersheim  reminds  us  that  the  credit  of  being  '  a  mighty,  valiant 
man,  and  a  man  of  war,'  need  only  refer  to  his  recognised  fearlessness 
and  prowess  as  a  shepherd.  David  could  have  had  no  experience  of 
actual  warfare,  with  national  enemies,  save  through  connection  with 
Saul's  armies.  Edersheim  remarks  :  '  David,  who  had  never  been 
permanently  in  Saul's  service,  had,  on  the  outbreak  of  war,  returned 
to  his  home.'  And  he  makes  the  following  contribution  to  the 
solution  of  the  difficulty  which  is  being  treated  in  this  paragraph  : 
'There  is  considerable  difficulty  about  the  text  as  it  now  stands. 
That  the  narrative  is  strictly  historical  cannot  be  doubted.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  verses  12-14,  and  still  more  verses  55-58,  read  as  if 
the  writer  had  inserted  this  part  of  his  narrative  from  some  other 
source,  perhaps  from  a  special  chronicle  of  the  event.  The  LXX. 
solve  the  difficulty  by  simply  leaving  out  verses  12-31,  and  again 
verses  55-58  ;  that  is,  they  boldly  treat  that  part  as  an  interpolation  ; 
and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  narrative  reads  easier  without  it. 
And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  if  these  verses  are  interpolated,  the 
work  has  been  clumsily  done ;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  any 
interpolator  would  not  at  once  have  seen  the  difficulties  he  created, 
especially  by  the  addition  of  verses  55-58.  Besides,  the  account  in 
verses  12-31,  not  only  fits  in  very  well  with  the  rest  of  the  narrative 
— bating  some  of  the  expressions  in  verses  12-14 — but  also  bears  the 
evident  impress  of  truthfulness.  The  drastic  method  in  which  the 
LXX.  dealt  with  the  text,  so  early  as  about  two  centuries  before 
Christ,  at  least  proves  that,  even  at  that  time,  there  were  strong 
doubts  about  the  genuineness  of  the  text.  All  this  leads  to  the 
suggestion,  that  somehow  the  text  may  have  become  corrupted,  and 
that  later  copyists  may  have  tried  emendations  and  additions,  by  way 
of  removing  difficulties,  which,  as  might  be  expected  in  such  a  case, 
would  only  tend  to  increase  them.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  are 
inclined  to  the  opinion  that,  while  the  narrative  itself  is  strictly 
authentic,  the  text,  as  we  possess  it,  is  seriously  corrupted  in  some  of 
the  expressions,  especially  in  the  concluding  verses  of  the  chapter. 
At  the  same  time  it  should  be  added,  that  its  correctness  has  been 
defended  by  very  able  critics.' 

We  naturally  turn  to  Josephus,  to  see  what  help  he  can  give  us 
in  arranging  the  story.  And  it  is  plain  that  the  materials  at  his  com- 
mand were  the  same  as  those  with  which  we  have  to  deal ;  but  he 
seems  not  to  have  before  him  the  confusing  conversation  between 
Saul  and  Abner,  given  in  verses  55-58,  and  so  he  does  not  feel  our 


DAVID'S  INTRODUCTION  TO  SAUL'S  COURT.     153 

difficulty.  His  record  may  not  be  at  the  ready  command  of  our 
readers,  and  we  give  it  as  showing  that  a  consecutive  story  can  be 
reasonably  constructed  from  the  record,  as  we  have  it.  On  the 
recommendation  of  the  court  physicians,  '  Saul  did  not  delay,  but 
commanded  them  to  seek  out  a  skilful  harper ;  and  when  a  certain 
stander-by  said  he  had  seen  in  the  city  of  Bethlehem  a  son  of  Jesse, 
who  was  yet  no  more  than  a  child  in  age,  but  comely  and  beautiful, 
and  in  other  respects  one  that  was  deserving  of  great  regard,  who 
was  skilful  in  playing  on  the  harp,  and  in  singing  of  hymns  (and  an 
excellent  soldier  in  war),  he  sent  to  Jesse,  and  desired  him  to  take 
David  away  from  the  flocks,  and  send  him  to  him,  for  he  had  a  mind 
to  see  him,  as  having  heard  an  advantageous  character  of  his  comeli- 
ness and  his  valour.  So  Jesse  sent  his  son,  and  gave  him  presents 
to  carry  to  Saul ;  and  when  he  was  come,  Saul  was  pleased  with  him, 
and  made  him  his  armour-bearer,  and  had  him  in  very  great  esteem. 
.  .  .  He  sent  to  Jesse,  the  father  of  the  child,  and  desired  him  to 
permit  David  to  stay  with  him,  for  that  he  was  delighted  with  his 
sight  and  company,  which  stay,  that  he  might  not  contradict  Saul,  he 
granted.'  *  Now,  while  this  war  with  the  Philistines  was  going  on, 
Saul  sent  away  David  to  his  father  Jesse.'  Then  follows  an  account 
of  the  battle  with  Goliath,  in  which  Josephus  assumes  that  David  was 
quite  well-known  to  Saul,  who  was  anxious  for  the  safety  of  one  whom 
he  cared  for ;  and  the  first  sign  of  jealousy  Josephus  associates  with 
the  unwise  ascription  of  chief  merit  to  David  ;  and  he  adds  :  '  Accord- 
ingly, he  removed  David  from  the  station  he  was  in  before,  for  he 
was  his  armour-bearer,  which,  out  of  fear,  seemed  to  him  much  too 
near  a  station  for  him  ;  and  so  he  made  him  a  captain  over  a  thousand, 
and  bestowed  on  him  a  post  better,  indeed,  in  itself,  but,  as  he 
thought,  more  for  his  own  security ;  for  he  had  a  mind  to  send  him 
against  the  enemy,  and  into  battles,  as  hoping  he  would  be  slain  in 
such  dangerous  conflicts.' 

Canon  Spence  gives  the  explanation  which  is  likely  to  commend 
itself  more  and  more  to  thoughtful  students.  It  sustains  the 
suggestions  given  above.  '  The  real  solution  of  the  difficulty  probably 
lies  in  the  fact  that  this  and  the  other  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  made  up  by  the  inspired  compiler  from  well- 
authenticated  traditions  current  in  Israel,  and  most  probably  pre- 
served in  the  archives  of  the  great  prophetic  schools.'  (May  we  not 
rather  think,  preserved  in  unwritten  form,  as  '  Folklore '  ?  Ed.  J3.D.} 
'  There  were,  no  doubt,  many  of  these  traditions  connected  with  the 
principal  events  of  David's  early  career.  Two  here  were  selected 
which,  to  a  certain  extent,  covered  the  same  ground.  ...  As  for  the 


154      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

great  love  of  the  king,  and  position  of  royal  armour-bearer,  these 
things  we  have  little  doubt  came  to  David  after  the  victory  over  the 
giant  Philistine,  and  very  likely,  indeed,  in  consequence  of  it.' 

The  Stronghold  of  Zion. 

2  SAMUEL  v.  7  :  '  Nevertheless  David  took  the  stronghold  of  Zion  ;  the  same  is 
the  city  of  David.' 

Question. — Have  rece?it  researches  brought  to  light  any  relics  of 
this  very  interesting  fortress  ? 

Answer. — Josephus  gives  a  magnificent  account  of  the  defences  of 
the  city,  natural  and  artificial,  in  his  day,  and  specially  at  or  about  this 
point.  The  first  of  its  three  walls  ran  round  the  summit  of  Mount 
Zion.  It  had  sixty  towers.  '  The  largeness  of  the  stones,'  he  says, 
4  in  three  of  these  was  wonderful.'  They  were  white  marble  (mt'zzey), 
27  feet  long,  by  10  feet  broad,  and  5  feet  deep. 

In  1874,  Mr.  Henry  Maudslay,  following  the  former  work  of  Sir 
Charles  Warren,  fully  explored  and  laid  bare  the  rock  foundation  of 
this  wall  on  the  south-west  brow  of  Mount  Zion,  in  all  probability  the 
famous  Jebusite  fortress, '  the  stronghold  of  Zion.'  It  proved,  indeed, 
a  magnificent  natural  fastness,  rendered  by  human  art  practically 
impregnable.  The  limestone  crag  at  this  point  appeared  as  a  per- 
pendicular scarp — that  is,  cut  smooth  and  straight  as  a  wall — to  an 
average  height  of  30  feet,  as  far  as  the  Turkish  authorities  would 
allow  him  to  lay  it  bare,- a  distance  of  some  hundred  and  thirty  yards. 
A  base  of  a  huge  tower  was  exposed  to  view,  in  the  shape  of  a  pro- 
jecting buttress  45  feet  square,  also  scarped — that  is,  cut  straight 
as  a  wall.  Thirty-six  steps  were  seen  cut  in  the  face  of  this  rock  wall 
for  the  purpose  of  ascending  to  the  top  of  a  second  smaller  projecting 
square  buttress,  the  base  of  a  second  tower.  The  bases  of  three 
towers  were  found  to  contain  no  less  than  eighteen  beers,  or  water- 
cisterns,  hewn  in  the  rock.  These  '  cisterns  to  receive  rain-water,' 
and  these  '  steps  '  are  specially  described  by  Josephus.  A  number 
of  fallen  stones,  from  three  to  four  feet  long,  were  found  at  the 
bottom  with  marks  indicating  Roman  work.  A  ditch  20  feet  wide 
was  found  at  the  foot  of  this  scarp  with  a  steep  rough  rock  slope 
below,  and,  in  one  place  at  least,  a  second  deeper  scarp  beneath  the 
other,  giving  a  rock-cut  perpendicular  face  of  some  50  feet  in 
height. 

This  rock-cut  scarp  thus  exposed,  and  which,  if  the  authorities  had 
not  interfered,  would  doubtless  have  been  traced  round  much  of  the 
city,  must  have  formed  part  of  the  lofty,  immovable  foundation  upon 


THE  STRONGHOLD  OF  ZION.  155 

which  the  mighty  wall  Josephus  describes  was  reared.  Towers  of 
amazing  strength,  relative  to  ancient  weapons  and  engines  of  attack, 
must  once  have  stood  out  on  the  projecting  buttress-like  bases.  But 
not  one  stone  of  these  remains  upon  another.  Well  has  Captain 
Conder,  R.E.,  pointed  out  that  this  scarp  is  peculiarly  'valuable  as 
showing  that,  however  the  masonry  may  have  been  destroyed  or 
lost,  we  may  yet  hope  to  find  indications  of  the  ancient  enceinte 
(boundary  wall)  in  the  rock  scarps  which  are  imperishable.'  (Pales- 
tine Exploration  Reports.} 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  gives  a  sketch  of  the  position  of  Jerusalem,  as 
seen  by  the  geologist,  which  enables  us  to  realize  the  situation,  the 
relations,  and  the  importance,  of  the  '  stronghold  of  Zion.'  At  '  Jeru- 
salem we  are  on  the  summit  of  the  ridge  separating  the  Mediterranean 
slope  from  the  more  abrupt  descent  to  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Jordan 
Valley.  The  surface  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  1,292  feet  below  the  level  of 
the  Mediterranean,  while  Jerusalem  is  2,590  feet  above  that  level, 
and  consequently  no  less  than  3,880  feet  above  the  great  depression 
which  lies  to  the  east  of  it.  The  city  occupies  a  little  promontory, 
connected  on  the  north  with  the  main  table-land  of  the  summit  of 
the  hills,  and  separated,  on  the  east  and  west,  by  deep  valleys  from 
the  neighbouring  eminences.  The  promontory  itself  is  divided  by  a 
furrow,  the  Tyropean  Valley,  into  two  unequal  portions,  so  that  it 
may  be  compared  to  a  cloven  hoof,  with  one  toe  longer  than  the 
other.  The  longer  or  western  toe,  separated  from  the  adjoining  hills 
by  the  Gihon  or  Hinnom  Valley,  is  that  which  is  usually  identified 
with  the  ancient  Zion,  and  on  which  the  greater  part  of  the  city  now 
stands,  and  its  southern  part  must  have  been  the  site  of  the  old 
Jebusite  town,  which  was  so  strong  that  it  retained  its  independence 
till  the  time  of  David.  The  smaller,  or  eastern  toe,  separated  by  the 
deep  Kedron  Valley  from  the  Mount  of  Olives,  is  that  of  Moriah 
and  Ophel,  and  on  it  stands  the  quarter  known  as  Bezetha,  and  the 
great  area  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  once  the  site  of  Solomon's 
Temple. 

'  Geologically,  Jerusalem  is  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  ridge  of  the 
hill  country,  for  the  beds  underlying  it  all  dip  eastward.  This  com- 
manding position  accounts  for  its  importance  as  an  ancient  Amorite 
stronghold,  and  also  for  its  selection  by  David  as  his  capital.  The 
geologist,  on  inspecting  such  a  site,  at  once  thinks  of  its  original  con- 
dition, and  of  the  causes  of  the  features  which  it  presents.  The 
former  is  not  difficult  to  realize,  for  though  there  has  been  some  filling 
of  hollows  with  debris  and  some  scarping  and  walling  up  of  slopes, 
the  relief  of  the  surface  is  too  decided  to  be  easily  obscured,  and  the 


156      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

excavations  of  Colonel  Warren  and  his  colleagues  have  sounded  the 
depths  of  most  of  the  masses  of  rubbish.  The  clue  to  the  latter  is 
most  easily  to  be  found  in  the  dip  of  the  rock,  as  seen  in  the  great 
quarries  and  excavations  in  the  eastern  ridge,  which  show  that  we 
have  a  general  easterly  dip,  and  consequently  an  ascending  series 
from  Zion  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  the  outcropping  edges  of  the 
harder  beds  forming  the  ridges,  and  the  cutting  out  of  the  soft  layers 
producing  the  valleys.  The  rock  of  the  western  or  Zion  Hill  is  a 
hard,  reddish  and  gray  limestone,  much  used  for  building  and  paving 
stones,  and  capable  of  taking  a  good  polish.  It  is  called  Misie  stone 
— that  is,  hard  or  resisting.' 

It  is  necessary  to  refer  briefly  to  the  theory,  advocated  by  Mr. 
Ferguson,  in  Smith's  '  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,'  that  the  evidence  of 
the  Old  Testament  distinctly  leads  to  the  identification  of  Zion  with 
the  eastern  hill,  on  which  the  Temple  stood.  According  to  this  view, 
the  fortress  captured  by  David  occupied  the  northern  part  of  the 
ridge,  on  which  the  Temple  was  afterwards  built.  Though  this 
theory  does  certainly  relieve  some  difficulties,  it  has  not  found 
general  acceptance. 

Under  Saws  and  Harrows. 

2  SAMUEL  xii.  31  :'  And  he  brought  forth  the  people  that  were  therein,  and 
put  them  under  saws,  and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and  under  axes  of  iron,  and  made 
them  pass  through  the  brick-kiln  ;  and  thus  did  he  unto  all  the  cities  of  the  children 
of  Ammon.'  (Marg. :  '  made  them  labour  at.') 

Difficulty. — //  does  not  seem  clear  whether  these  terms  mean  modes 
of  execution,  or  merely  the  punishment  of  subjection  to  hard  forms  of 
labour. 

Explanation. — The  answering  passage,  i  Chron.  xx.  3,  reads  as 
follows,  and  the  Revisers  propose  no  alteration  in  it :  '  And  he 
brought  out  the  people  that  were  in  it,  and  cut  them  with  saws,  and 
with  harrows  of  iron,  and  with  axes.'  If  the  passage  in  Samuel  may 
refer  to  'slavish  labour,'  that  in  Chronicles  certainly  suggests  'torture.' 
Mercifulness  in  dealing  with  conquered  enemies  is  quite  a  Western 
and  Christian  idea.  It  is  a  surprise  to  Easterns  even  in  these  days. 
We  need  not  suppose  that  David  rose  superior  to  the  common  senti- 
ments of  his  country  and  his  times,  and  we  should  take  due  account 
of  the  fact  that  the  Ammonites  had  offered  a  peculiarly  unbearable 
insult  in  their  treatment  of  David's  ambassadors. 

G.  D.  Copeland  thinks  that  the  sense  of  these  passages  is  met  if 
we  only  understand  that  David  condemned  the  Ammonites  to 
rigorous  and  painful  toil.  '  The  English  Version  is,  on  the  whole, 


UNDER  SA  WS  AND  HARROWS.  157 

excellent,  and  has  been  honoured  of  God  as  no  other.  Yet  the 
English  Version  is  not  an  inspired  translation,  though  the  translation 
of  an  inspired  original.  Now  it  so  happens  that  the  original  here  is 
susceptible  of  a  different  rendering  to  that  given  in  our  translation  ; 
thus,  instead  of  under  saws  and  harrows,  the  word  may  be  equally 
unto  saws  and  harrows.  This  would  imply  only  that  David  made 
slaves  of  his  captives,  reduced  them  to  penal  servitude,  and  made  of 
them  sawyers  and  so  forth.  Further,  the  word  translated  harrows  of 
iron  may  also  be  rendered  iron  mines,  implying  that  David  put  his 
captives  to  work  in  the  mines.  And  again,  the  Hebrew  word  trans- 
lated "  cut  them  "  with  saws,  in  Chronicles,  is  almost  exactly  the  same 
as  that  rendered  put  in  Samuel,  and  is  capable  of  the  same  interpre- 
tation, and,  indeed,  the  majority  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  have  the  very 
word  which  means,  "  he  put  them  to  saws."  ' 

While  we  would  gladly  relieve  the  records  of  David's  life  of  such 
inhumanities  as  are  suggested  by  the  Authorised  Version,  we  fear 
that  the  older  view  of  our  text  must  be  regarded  as  the  true  one. 
The  latest  writers  are  obliged  to  recognise  in  it  descriptions  of  tor- 
turing and  degrading  modes  of  capital  punishment  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  and  sentiment  of  the  age.  We  may  helpfully  set 
together  the  views  of  the  passage  taken  by  leading  Bible  writers. 

Cambridge  Bible  (A.  R  Kirkpatrick,  ALA.) :  ' "  Put  them  upon 
saws,"  or  perhaps  we  should  read  as  in  Chronicles,  "  Sawed  them  with 
saws."  This  barbarous  practice  was  not  unknown  at  .Rome.  See 
Heb.  xi.  37.  "  Threshing-sledges  of  iron."  Sledges  or  frames  armed 
on  the  underside  with  rollers  or  sharp  spikes  used  for  the  purpose  of 
bruising  the  ears  of  corn  and  extracting  the  grain,  and  at  the  same 
time  breaking  up  the  straw  into  small  pieces  for  use  as  fodder. 
"  Burned  them  in  brick-kilns."  The  phrase  is  chosen  with  reference 
to  the  idolatrous  rite  practised  by  the  Ammonites  of  "  making  their 
children  pass  through  the  fire  "  in  honour  of  Moloch.  These  cruel 
punishments  must  be  judged  according  to  the  standard  of  the  age  in 
which  they  were  inflicted,  not  by  the  light  of  Christian  civilization. 
The  Ammonites  were  evidently  a  savage  and  brutal  nation  (i  Sam. 
xi.  i,  2  ;  2  Sam.  x.  1-5  ;  Amos  i.  13),  and  in  all  probability  they  were 
treated  no  worse  than  they  were  accustomed  to  treat  others.  It  was 
the  age  of  retaliation,  when  the  law  of  "  like  for  like  " — the  lex  talionis 
— prevailed  (Judg.  i.  7  ;  Lev.  xxiv.  19,  20).  They  had  foully  insulted 
David,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if  he  was  provoked  into 
making  a  signal  example  of  them  by  this  severity.  In  this  respect 
he  did  not  rise  above  the  level  of  his  own  age.  Modern  history  has 
its  parallels,  not  only  in  the  barbarities  perpetrated  at  Alengon  by  a 


158      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

ruthless  soldier  like  William  the  Conqueror,  but  in  the  merciless 
massacre  by  which  the  Black  Prince  sullied  his  fair  fame  on  the 
capture  of  Limoges.' 

Ellicotfs  Commentary  (Dr.  F.  Gardiner]  takes  the  view  that  tortures 
are  referred  to,  and  says  :  '  In  the  infliction  of  these  cruelties  on  his 
enemies,  David  acted  in  accordance  with  the  customs  and  the  know- 
ledge of  his  time.  Abhorrent  as  they  may  be  to  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity, David  and  his  contemporaries  took  them  as  matters  of  course, 
without  a  suspicion  that  they  were  not  in  accordance  with  God's 
will.' 

Ewald  writes  thus  :  '  The  captive  warriors  of  this  and  the  other 
cities  of  the  country  David  punished  with  great  severity  on  account 
of  the  original  cause  which  had  led  to  the  war.  He  mangled  them 
with  saws,  iron  flails,  and  iron-shearing  machines,  or  roasted  them  in 
burning  kilns.' 

Dean  Stanley  makes  the  following  reference  :  '  The  expressions 
agree  well  with  the  cruel  extermination  of  the  conquered  inhabitants 
by  fire  and  by  strange  and  savage  tortures — a  vengeance  to  be 
accounted  for,  not  excused,  by  the  formidable  resistance  of  the 
besieged.' 

Wordsworth  says  of  the  severer  reading  of  the  text :  *  This  seems 
to  be  the  right  interpretation,  though  controverted  by  some.'  And 
he  refers  to  Keil  and  Kitto. 

Speaker's  Commentary  (Bishop  Heruey}  has  this  note  :  '  The  cruelty 
of  these  executions  belongs  to  the  barbarous  manners  of  the  age,  and 
was  provoked  by  the  conduct  of  the  Ammonites.' 

Critical  Commentary  (Jamieson]  brings  out  another  point  :  '  This 
excessive  severity  and  employment  of  tortures,  which  the  Hebrews 
on  no  other  occasion  are  recorded  to  have  practised,  was  an  act  of 
retributive  justice  on  a  people  who  were  infamous  for  their 
cruelties.' 

Kitto  gives  the  milder  view,. but  is  not  able  to  accept  it  as  the 
correct  one :  '  The  common,  and  as  it  seems  to  us  the  true,  interpre- 
tation is,  that  they  were  put  to  deaths  of  torture.  We  would  very 
gladly,  were  it  in  our  power,  agree  with  Dantz,  who,  followed  by 
Delany,  Chandler,  and  other  writers,  contends  that  David  merely 
condemned  his  Ammonitish  captives  to  severe  bodily  labours,  to 
hewing  and  sawing  wood,  to  burning  of  bricks,  and  to  working  in 
iron  mines.  But  this  interpretation  has  little  real  foundation.  It 
does  much  violence  to  the  Hebrew  words,  which  it  takes  in  an  un- 
usual and  previously  unimagined  acceptation.'  See  '  Biblical  Diffi- 
culties,' Series  I.,  p.  316. 


SUMMAR  Y  AND  RE  VIE  W  OF  SECTION.         1 5  9 
SUMMARY  AND  REVIEW  OF  SECTION. 

THE  PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORIES. 

In  an  article  by  Professor  William  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  contributed 
o  the  American  Sunday  School  Times,  the  points  of  chief  interest 
:onnected  with  the  Bible  histories  are  carefully  treated,  with  corn- 
Detent  knowledge,  and  in  a  liberal  spirit.  Dr.  Harper's  conclusions 
tfill  commend  themselves  to  all  earnest  and  devout  students  who  are 
milling  to  learn  what  the  Bible  really  is,  and  cannot  be  satisfied  with 
my  decision  beforehand  as  to  what  man  thinks  God's  Bible  for  the 
-ace  ought  to  be.  A  critical  examination  of  the  actual  contents  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  a  scientific  attempt  to  discover  the  original 
naterial,  and  to  trace  the  processes  of  compilation  and  of  editing, 
ire  quite  consistent  with  a  reverent  love  for  God's  Word,  and  a 
devout  recognition  of  its  inspiration  as  the  world's  rule  of  faith  and 
norals.  What  is  needed  is  that  the  critical  study  of  Holy  Scripture 
should  be  undertaken  by  godly  and  devout  men,  who  will  honestly 
x>int  out  what  can  be  known,  and  will  jealously  preserve  all  that  can 
)e  honestly  maintained.  That  which  is  '  of  God '  even  adverse  and 
)ver-confident  criticisms  cannot  overthrow. 

Professor  Harper  notices  that  : 

i.  There  is  in  many  portions  of  the  historical  books  a  lack  of 
:hronological  order.  The  writer  does  not  always  feel  it  incumbent 
ipon  him  to  describe  the  events  in  the  order  in  which  they  took 
)lace.  (i)  Judg.  xii.  8-15  covers  a  period  from  the  death  of  Jeph- 
hah  to  the  death  of  Abdon  ;  but  this  overlaps  chs.  xiii.-xvi.,  the 
;tory  of  Samson,  while  the  story  of  Samson  reaches  down  into  the 
)eriod  covered  by  i  Sam.  i.-vi.  (2)  2  Sam.  xxi.  i-n,  which  de- 
;cribes  a  three  years'  famine,  because  of  Saul's  massacre  of  the 
jibeonites,  and  the  execution  of  Saul's  sons,  does  not  follow  ch.  xx., 
)ut  belongs,  without  doubt,  before  the  rebellion  of  Absalom  (chs. 
cv.-xviii.)  ;  for  in  2  Sam.  xvi.  7,  8  ;  xix.  28  we  find  references  to 
hese  events.  (3)  2  Sam.  xxii.,  David's  thanksgiving  for  deliverance 
rom  Saul,  belongs,  of  course,  to  the  early  period  of  his  life.  (4) 
2  Sam.  xxiii.  8-39,  David's  heroes  and  their  exploits,  is  found  in 
c  Chron.  xi.  11-41,  after  the  account  of  David's  becoming  king.  (5) 
2  Sam.  vi.:  the  removal  of  the  ark,  is  by  some  (Professor  Beecher,  in 
:  Old  Testament  Student,'  vol.  vii.,  p.  61  et  seq.}  regarded  as  having 
:aken  place  after,  not  before,  the  sin  with  Bathsheba  (ch.  xi.).  (6) 


160      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  chapters  of  Isaiah  which  are  connected  with  that  memorable 
year  701,  the  year  of  Sennacherib's  invasion,  are  as  follows  :  i.  (?) ; 
x.  5  to  xii.  6;  xiv.  24-27;  xvii.  12-14;  xviii.  33,  36,  37.  (7)  The 
chapters  of  Jeremiah  which  belong  to  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  are 
vii.-x.,  xxvi.,  xiv.,  xv.,  xviii.,  xix.,  xxv.,  xxxv.,  xlvi.-xlix.,  xxxvi.  ;  while 
those  of  the  period  of  Jehoiaqhin  and  Zedekiah  are  xiii.,  1.,  li.,  xxvii.- 
xxix.  ;  xxi.,  xxii.,  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  xxxiv.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii.,  xxx.,  xxxi.,  xxxii., 
xxxiii.,  xxxix.,  Hi.  (though  some  of  these  may  possibly  better  be  as- 
signed to  another  period). 

Other  examples  might  be  cited,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show 
that  the  arrangement  of  matter  which  has  come  down  to  us,  whatever 
may  have  been  its  origin,  is  in  many  cases  not  a  chronological  one. 
Now,  either  (i)  the  writer  made  an  effort  to  put  the  matter  in  chrono- 
logical order  and  failed ;  or  (2)  the  original  writer  placed  it  in  such 
order,  but  later  copyists  have  disarranged  it ;  or  (3)  the  writer  made 
no  particular  effort  to  secure  a  chronological  order.  In  the  case  of 
the  Book  of  Judges,  the  supposition  that  no  effort  was  made  to 
secure  this  order  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  in  the  enumeration 
of  periods,  seven,  twenty,  forty,  and  eighty  occur  so  frequently — 
'  numerals  which  have  the  appearance  of  round  numbers,  rather  than 
exact  dates.' 

2.  There  is  found  in  many  portions  either  no  chronological  indica- 
tion, or  at  best  a  very  defective  one ;  that  is,  the  text  is  not  careful  to 
point  out  the  time  when  or  during  which  the  events  described  in  it 
took  place.  Still  further,  what  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  text 
is  sometimes  discovered  from  other  portions  of  Scripture,  or  from 
outside  sources,  to  be  incorrect,  (i)  The  fact  that  there  have  been 
proposed  more  than  fifty  ways  of  explaining  the  chronology  of  the 
Book  of  Judges  would  indicate  that  the  chronological  data  of  the 
book  were,  to  say  the  least,  defective.  (2)  It  is  only  by  the  com- 
parison of  several  passages  that  one  discovers  that  Samson's  great 
exploits  were  performed  after  the  death  of  Eli,  and  just  before 
Samuel's  reformation.  (3)  At  the  time  of  Saul's  election  he  was  a 
young  man.  Chs.  ix.  and  x.  (i  Sam.)  tell  of  his  choice  by  Samuel 
and  the  people ;  ch.  xi.  tells  of  his  victory  over  Ammon,  which 
immediately  followed ;  ch.  xii.  of  Samuel's  farewell  address  at  the  age 
of  seventy;  while  in  ch.  xiii.,  which  to  all  appearances,  follows  at 
once,  Saul  has  a  son  Jonathan  old  enough  to  command  a  division  of 
the  army.  We  must  suppose  that  the  first  period  of  his  reign  (per- 
haps ten  or  fifteen  years)  is  passed  over  in  silence  (between  chs.  ix  and 
xiii.).  (4)  One  would  scarcely  suppose  that  a  period  of  twenty  years 
elapsed  between  verses  37  and  38  of  Isaiah  xxxvii. ;  yet  such  is  the 


SUMMAR  Y  AND  RE  VIE  W  OF  SECTION.         1 6 1 

case.  (5)  The  great  doubt  as  to  the  duration  of  the  nation's  stay  in 
Egypt — whether  430  or  230  years— is  due  to  the  lack  of  clearness  in 
the  indication  of  chronological  data.  (6)  It  is  not  told  us  how 
long  Samuel  judged,  or  how  long  his  sons  were  judges.  (7)  While 
the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  are  in  nearly  every  case  clearly  and  definitely 
located,  so  far  as  concerns  the  time  of  their  utterance,  and  while 
those  of  Jeremiah  are  frequently  so  designated,  Isaiah's  material  is 
in  the  majority  of  instances  left  in  great  doubt,  the  order  and  position 
having  often  to  be  determined  solely  by  internal  evidence.  (8)  The 
lack  of  any  direct  statement  in  reference  to  the  date  of  Joel,  though 
the  book  abounds  in  historical  material  as  distinguished  from  the 
prophetic,  has  left  its  position  to  be  determined  wholly  by  internal 
evidence.  (9)  All  are  familiar  with  the  difficulties  which  are  con- 
nected with  the  question  of  Solomon's  age  when  he  ascended  the 
throne,  and  with  the  exact  chronology  of  the  kings  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  as  indeed  of  many  others  of  Israel's  and  Judah's 
kings. 

It  is  quite  certain,  therefore,  that,  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
habit  of  some  writers — for  example,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah — 
many  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  seem  to  have  cared  little  about 
giving  such  statements  as  would  have  made  the  time  of  writings  and 
events  certain.  In  other  words,  there  are  in  certain  periods  few,  if 
any,  indications  of  chronology.  If  it  is  asked  whether,  in  the  absence 
of  such  data,  there  is  evidence  of  some  other  system  of  arrangement, 
it  may  be  answered  that  in  some  cases— for  example,  2  Sam.  xxii.  24 
— the  material  seems  to  have  been  roughly  thrown  together  in  the 
form  of  an  appendix.  In  others,  as  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  no  particular  system  has  as  yet 
been  discovered. 

3.  In  reading  these  various  histories,  one  is  frequently  struck  with 
the  incompleteness,  the  fragmentary  character,  of  the  narratives. 
This  is  something  different  from  that  brevity  of  statement  for  which 
the  sacred  writers  are  so  justly  praised.  It  is  rather  the  omission  of 
what  seem  to  us  to  be  important  facts  ;  and  these  omitted  facts  are, 
in  some  cases  certainly,  necessary  to  any  full  or  satisfactory  under- 
standing of  the  matter  in  hand,  looked  at  from  an  historical  point  of 
view.  Their  omission,  indeed,  gives  an  impression  which  is  some- 
times entirely  wrong.  (i)  In  the  story  of  Saul's  reign  we  have, 
according  to  the  best  interpretation  of  the  material,  no  record  of  the 
first  ten  or  fifteen  years  :  the  impression  produced  by  the  narrative  is 
that  Saul  disobeys  Samuel,  and  comes  into  conflict  with  him  almost 
immediately  after  his  appointment  When,  however,  we  discover 

n 


i62      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

that  this  long  period  has  been  omitted,  the  whole  case  becomes  more 
intelligible,  and  the  development  of  the  evil  side  of  Saul's  nature  is 
explained.  (2)  Jonathan,  as  will  be  remembered,  suddenly  appears 
as  the  leader  of  a  part  of  the  army,  though  no  mention  of  him  had 
before  been  made  in  any  connection.  (3)  From  a  strictly  historical 
point  of  view,  one  is  scarcely  satisfied  to  find  the  writer  of  2  Samuel, 
after  furnishing  such  minute  details  of  every  other  part  of  David's 
life,  omitting  any  reference  to  his  jdeath ;  nor  is  this  feeling  changed 
when  we  find  the  death  recorded  in  two  verses  in  i  Kings.  (4) 
Jehoshaphat's  war  with  Moab  and  Ammon  (2  Chron.  xx.)  is  passed 
without  mention  by  the  writer  of  Kings ;  nor  is  anything  said  of 
Uzziah's  victories  over  the  Philistines,  or  of  Manasseh's  capture  by 
Assyria.  (5)  Shishak's  capture  of  Jerusalem,  a  most  important  event, 
receives  only  two  verses  (i  Kings  xiv.  25,  26) ;  Abijam's  war  with 
Jeroboam,  one  (i  Kings  xv.  6) ;  Josiah's  contest  with  Pharaoh-Necho, 
one  of  the  most  critical  in  sacred  history,  only  one  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
29).  (6)  The  writer  or  compiler  of  Chronicles  thought  it  un- 
necessary, or  foreign  to  his  purpose,  to  make  any  mention  of  (a)  the 
reign  of  David  at  Hebron,  or  the  civil  war  between  David  and  Saul's 
house  (2  Sam.  i.-iv.)  \  (/>)  David's  adultery  and  punishment  (2  Sam.  xi., 
xii.);  (c)  Absalom's  vengeance  upon  his  brother  and  his  rebellion 
(2  Sam.  xiii.-xx.),  together  with  several  other  matters  of  minor  import-( 
ance.  One  feels  that  an  account  of  David's  life,  with  the  story  of 
Bathsheba  and  the  consequences  of  that  crime  omitted,  is  exceeding 
fragmentary  and  incomplete.  (7)  The  writer  of  Samuel  has  also 
omitted  many  facts,  a  knowledge  of  which  is  essential  to  any  just 
comprehension  of  the  history  of  religious  worship  in  the  time  of 
David  and  Solomon  (i  Chron.  xiii.  1-5 ;  xv.,  xvi.,  xxii.,  xxiii.-xxvii., 
xxviii.,  xxix.).  (8)  In  the  story  of  Jonah,  which,  after  all,  must  be 
taken  along  with  the  Elijah  and  Elisha  stories  as  historical,  and  not, 
with  many  modern  critics,  as  fiction  or  allegory,  one  searches  in  vain 
for  (a)  the  location  of  Jonah's  abode,  (b)  the  spot  where  he  was 
vomited  up,  (c)  an  account  of  his  long,  wearisome  journey  to  Nineveh, 
(d)  the  name  of  the  Assyrian  king,  (e)  his  fate  after  his  rebuke  by 
God,  (/)  his  subsequent  relations  to  Nineveh. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  more  striking  omissions — omissions 
which  leave  us  in  greater  or  less  confusion  of  mind.  It  may  be  said 
this  is  only  the  result  of  the  brief  and  condensed  method  which  the 
writer  was  compelled  to  adopt ;  a  book  which  covers  so  much  ground 
must,  in  places,  be  fragmentary  and  incomplete.  This  is  true ;  but 
notice  must  also  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament,  brief 
as  it  is,  contains  a  great  many  repetitions  ;  for  example,  (a)  of  the 


SUMMAR  Y  AND  REVIE  W  OF  SECTION.         163 

account  of  the  tabernacle  in  Exodus ;  (£)  and  of  the  laws  in  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy ;  (c]  of  the  history  of  David 
and  the  later  kings  in  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles ;  (d)  David's 
thanksgiving  (2  Sam.  xxii.  ;  Psa.  xviii.);  (e)  the  historical  portions  of 
Isaiah  (Isa.  xxxvi.-xxxix.  ;  2  Kings  xviii.-xx.).  And,  in  view  of  these 
repetitions,  one,  speaking  now  wholly  from  the  historical  standpoint, 
could  wish  that  the  space  taken  up  by  them  had  been  used  in  pre- 
senting other  matters  from  which  something  of  interest  might  have 
been  gained  in  reference  to  the  subject  in  hand. 

4.  Something  distinct  from  this  is  seen  in  the  emphasis  laid  upon 
certain  special  items  selected  from  what  must  have  been  a  large 
number,  the  remainder  being  entirely  omitted,  or  passed  over  very 
lightly,  (i)  In  Judges,  five  chapters  are  given  to  Gideon  with  his 
son,  four  to  Samson,  two  each  to  Jephthah,  Micah  the  Danite,  and 
the  outrage  at  Gibeah.  Five  subjects  thus  take  fifteen  out  of  twenty 
chapters  in  a  book  covering  300  years.  (2)  In  i  Samuel,  ten 
(i  Sam",  xviii.  10  to  xxvii.  12)  out  of  thirty-one  chapters  (nearly  one- 
third)  are  given  to  the  persecution  of  David  by  Saul,  and  the  former's 
wanderings  in  the  wilderness  as  an  outlaw ;  Saul's  reign,  outside  of 
this,  receiving  only  five  chapters  (i  Sam.  xiii.-xvii.),  unless  we  include 
the  story  of  the  Witch  of  Endor  (i  Sam.  xxviii.)  and  the  battle  of 
Gilboa  (i  Sam.  xxxi.).  (3)  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  story  of  the 
Witch  of  Endor  takes  twenty-five  verses,  the  plunder  of  Ziklag  by 
David  thirty-one ;  while  the  battle  of  Gilboa,  including  the  account 
of  the  defeat  of  the  army,  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan,  the 
treatment  of  their  bodies,  the  heroic  rescue  and  burial  by  the  men  of 
Jabesh-Gilead,  is  given  in  thirteen  verses.  (4)  In  2  Samuel,  David's 
reign  at  Hebron  and  the  civil  war  with  Saul's  house  take  four  chapters, 
yet  this  is  altogether  omitted  by  the  writer  of  Chronicles.  David's 
adultery  and  punishment,  the  latter  including  Absalom's  rebellion, 
take  ten  chapters,  nearly  one-half  of  the  book ;  this  also  is  omitted 
by  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles.  (5)  The  twenty-four  chapters  of 
2  Samuel  with  the  last  chapter  of  i  Samuel  cover  the  same  historical 
ground  taken  up  in  i  Chronicles  x.  -xxix. ;  that  is,  nineteen  chapters. 
Of  the  twenty-five  Samuel  chapters,  about  nine  (counting  roughly) 
are  found  in  Chronicles ;  of  the  nineteen  Chronicles  chapters,  about 
eight  are  found  in  Samuel.  In  other  words,  two  writers  preparing  a 
history  of  the  same  period,  employing  for  the  most  part  the  same 
sources,  using  in  many  passages  the  same  language,  differ  so  much 
from  each  other  that  the  matter  possessed  in  common  amounts,  in 
one  case,  to  a  little  more  than  one-third  of  his  material ;  in  the  other, 
to  a  little  less  than  one-half.  (6)  Of  the  forty-seven  chapters  of 

IT — 2 


1 64      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES 

Kings  which  cover  the  period  1015-562  B.C.,  about  450  years,  (a) 
nearly  one-fourth  (eleven  chapters)  is  given  to  the  first  forty  years 
(the  reign  of  Solomon) ;  (b)  about  one-fifth  (nine  chapters)  is  given 
to  the  narratives  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  ;  (c)  the  division  of  the  kingdom, 
the  most  important  event  in  Israelitish  history  after  the  Exodus,  is 
treated  in  twenty-four  verses,  the  story  of  the  man  of  God  in  thirty- 
two  ;  (d)  the  history  of  twenty-five  kings  and  queens,  from  Albatiah 
(query,  Ahaziah)  to  Zedekiah,  and  from  Jehu  to  Joash  (query,  Josiah), 
including  the  account  of  the  destruction  of  both  kingdoms — the 
history  of  two  nations  for  322  years — is  given  in  fourteen  chapters, 
only  one-half  more  than  the  number  of  chapters  given  to  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  one-fourth  more  than  the  number  given  to  Solomon. 

Many  more  facts  similar  to  these  might  be  cited ;  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  proportion  in  treatment — at  least,  the  proportion 
which  would  be  observed  by  a  modern  historian — is  not  found  in  the 
sacred  histories.  There  are,  of  course,  reasons  for  all  this,  and  these 
reasons  should  be  carefully  considered. 

5.  A  careful  study  of  the  principal  books — Samuel,   Kings,  and 
Chronicles — reveals  still  another  important  characteristic  connected 
with  their  origin ;  namely,   that  they  are  the  work  of  compilation. 
The  author  compiled  the  material  from   several  writings,   and,   as 
Professor  Beecher  has  said  (*  Old  Testament  Student/  vol.  vii.,  p.  25)  : 
*  Instead  of  reading  these  writings,  and  remembering  their  contents, 
and  stating  them  in  his  own  language,  as  most  modern  writers  would 
do,  he  did  his  work  of  compilation  largely  by  the  process  of  tran- 
scribing sections  of  earlier  works.'     The  evidence  of  this  fact  is  very 
abundant,  and  the  fact  is  so  well  known  and  generally  accepted  that 
it  need  hardly  be   enlarged  upon.      (i)    A  comparison  of  parallel 
passages  in  Samuel  or  Kings  and  Chronicles  shows  the  method  of  the 
author;  for  example,  2  Kings  xiv.   17-22  with  2   Chronicles  xxv.  25 
to  xxvi.    i  :    '  The   transcribed    portions  the    author    of    Chronicles 
commonly  abbreviates  and  renders  more  fluent  by  dropping  words 
and  changing  phrases.     Occasionally  he  adds  a  fact  or  a  comment, 
often  in  Hebrew,  that  is  linguistically  quite  different  from  the  tran- 
scribed portions.'     (2)  The  books  themselves  tell  us  in  many  instances 
that  the  material  has  been  taken  from  some  particular  source,  and 
give  in    detail   the   title   of   the   source.      For  such  references  see 
i    Chron.  xxix.    29;  xxvii.    24;    2    Chron.    xii.    15;    xiii.    22;    xx. 
34;  xxvi.   22;  xxxii.  32;  xxxiii.    18,    19.     (3)  Still  farther,   there  is 
evidence  that  Samuel,  Gad,  and  Nathan  left  behind  them  works  of 
some  kind,   to    which    we    are    largely  indebted    for  the  Books  of 
Samuel ;  for  passages  which  show  Gad  and  Nathan  to  have  been  in 


SUMMAR  Y  AND  RE  VIE  W  OF  SECTION.         165 

close  communication  with  David,  see  i  Sam.  xxii.  5  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  2,  3  ; 
xii.  i,  2,  25;  xxiv.  11-13;  i  Kings  i.  8-10.  (4)  The  statistical  part 
of  the  material  in  the  histories  of  the  Kings — summaries  of  wars,  list 
of  officials — may  well  have  been  derived  from  such  royal  records  as 
those  ascribed  to  King  David  (i  Chron.  xxvii.  24).  (5)  There  must 
also  have  been  some  poetical  work  from  which  were  taken  such 
passages  as  Hannah's  song  (i  Sam.  ii.  i-io) ;  the  song  of  the  bow 
(2  Sam.  i.  17-27);  David's  lament  for  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  33,  34); 
David's  thanksgiving  (2  Sam.  xxii. ;  Psa.  xviii.) ;  the  last  words  of 
David  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1-7).  Indeed,  special  reference  is  made 
(2  Sam.  i.  1 8)  to  such  a  work,  known  as  the  Book  of  Jasher.  (6) 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  and  good  reason  to  believe,  that  oral 
tradition  supplied  the  compiler  with  some  of  his  material.  All  this 
is  of  great  importance  for  any  careful  study  of  the  Old  Testament 
histories. 

6.  We  come  now  to  the  last  and  most  important  feature,  namely, 
the  prophetic  character  of  the  Old  Testament  histories  ;  and  it  is 
here  that  they  part  company  with  the  writings  of  all  other  nations. 
The  word  *  prophetic '  is  to  be  used  in  a  broader  sense  than  as 
meaning  '  predictive.'  Prophecy  has  been  well  defined  as  '  the 
declaration  and  illustration  of  the  principles  of  Divine  government,' 
and  we  must  not  forget  that  there  was  a  prophecy  of  the  past  and 
present  as  well  as  of  the  future.  When  the  man  of  God  looked 
about  him,  and  saw  this  condition  of  things  here,  and  that  condition 
there ;  when  he  assured  those  within  the  reach  of  his  voice  that  the 
one  was  contrary  to  God's  will,  and  that  God  was  already  sending 
upon  them  punishment  because  of  it :  that  the  other  was  as  God 
would  have  it,  and  that  the  marks  of  Divine  favour  were  already 
apparent,  we  may  call  this  the  prophecy  of  the  present. 

When  one,  inspired  from  above,  recalled  how  God  led  individuals 
or  nations,  and  writes  the  record  of  the  past,  the  patriarch's  devotion 
to  the  Almighty  and  his  reward,  or  the  nation's  apostasy  and  the 
slavery  into  which  it  plunged  them  :  a  king's  crime,  with  its  severe 
and  long-drawn-out  punishment,  a  royal  prayer,  a  miraculous  deliver- 
ance, a  prophet's  mission,  a  city  turned  from  sin — when  he  writes 
this  down  for  the  encouragement  or  warning  of  his  friends  and 
countrymen,  and  of  those  who  are  to  follow  him,  we  may  call  it  a 
prophecy  of  the  past. 

Now,  the  chief  characteristic  of  Hebrew  history,  the  thing  which  is, 
above  all  else,  peculiar  to  it,  is  this  prophetical  element.  The  fact 
is,  these  so-called  historical  books  are  not  history  at  all  (this  does  not 
mean  that  they  are  not  historical) ;  they  are  prophecy  of  the  truest 


166      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

and  strictest  kind.  This  point  must  be  treated  very  briefly,  (i)  In 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  historical  books  are  called  '  prophets,'  classi- 
fied with  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  the  rest,  and  thus  distinguished,  on 
the  one  hand,  from  the  'law,'  and,  on  the  other,  from  the  'writings' 
(Psalms,  Job,  etc.).  (2)  The  material  is  everywhere  prophetic  in  its 
character.  Nothing  is  written  down  to  serve  any  other  than  a 
religious  purpose,  (a)  The  Book  of  Judges  describes  '  the  collapse 
of  the  Israelitish  policy,  the  occasion  of  the  collapse,  namely,  Israel's 
apostasy,  and  the  treatment  of  Israel  by  her  oppressors  as  the  con- 
sequence of  the  collapse.  All  this  is  religious  ;  it  is  preaching  of  the 
highest  order.  Every  distinct  narrative  will  be  found  to  convey  a 
religious  lesson.  (I))  Consider  the  leading  topics  in  i  Samuel :  the 
contrast  between  Samuel  and  the  sons  of  Eli ;  Samuel's  steady 
growth ;  Eli's  weak  character ;  the  decay  of  religion  ;  punishment  of 
sin,  as  seen  in  the  loss  of  the  ark;  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's 
power  in  defence  of  His  ark ;  the  wilfulness  and  superstition  of  Saul ; 
the  providential  escapes  of  David  ;  the  gradual  hardening  of  Saul's 
heart,  etc.  (c)  Recall  the  great  story  of  2  Samuel,  the  sin  of  David 
and  the  punishment  which  followed,  a  story  to  which  everything  else 
is  made  subordinate,  (d)  In  the  Book  of  Kings  this  is  seen  not  only 
in  the  prominence  given  to  the  work  of  the  prophets,  especially 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  but  also  in  the  almost  monotonous  '  he  did  that 
which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,'  or,  '  he  did  that  which  was  evil 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,'  a  judgment  always  based  on  prophetic  insight. 
(3)  The  form  and  spirit  of  the  material,  as  well  as  the  material  itself, 
furnishes  evidence  of  this.  There  is  not  space  here  for  a  detailed 
comparison  of  the  Hebrew  historical  writings  with  those  of  other 
nations,  but  if  such  a  comparison  could  be  instituted  with,  for 
example,  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  material,  what  would  it  show  ? 
Many  are  now  familiar  with  the  character  and  contents  of  the 
Assyrian  records,  fragmentary,  full  of  idle  boasting,  given  chiefly  to 
the  describing  of  scenes  of  blood  and  pillage,  lists  of  kings  conquered, 
lists  of  mountains  ascended,  of  rivers  crossed,  of  countries  subdued ; 
without  aim  or  purpose,  save  to  boast ;  with  no  common  bond ; 
statistical  records,  not  history ;  in  almost  every  sense  disappointing. 

Put  side  by  side  with  these  records  those  of  the  Hebrews,  com- 
plete from  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer,  that  only  being  omitted 
which  did  not  serve  the  great  purpose  of  his  work ;  containing,  all 
told,  less  of  the  spirit  of  egotistical  bravado  than  will  be  found  in  a 
single  column  of  an  Assyrian  inscription ;  battles,  to  be  sure,  but 
battles  which  were  fought  for  principles  ;  statistics,  to  be  sure,  but 
only  those  which  had  to  do  with  the  interests  of  the  kingdom  of 


SUMMARY  AND  REVIEW  OF  SECTION.         167 

God ;  from  beginning  to  end  written  with  a  single  purpose  in  view, 
and  that  to  teach  men  (men  of  all  times)  how  to  live,  how  not  to 
live ;  holding  up  as  examples  of  the  punishment  which  follows  sin 
the  lives  of  the  nation's  most  revered  leaders.  The  result  of  such  a 
comparison,  with  whatever  literature  it  may  be  made,  will  be  the 
same,  namely,  to  show  the  presence  of  a  '  something '  in  the  Hebrew 
historical  writings  which  no  other  historical  writings  contain.  That 
something  is  the  prophetic  element.  The  Old  Testament  pages  with 
this  element  omitted  would  be  as  commonplace,  as  unsatisfactory, 
in  short,  as  human,  as  the  records  of  all  other  ancient  nations  are 
to-day. 

The  Old  Testament  histories,  so  far  as  concerns  their  literary 
form  and  character,  when  judged  by  the  standard  of  modern  historio- 
graphy, show,  it  must  be  conceded,  certain  defects ;  but  these 
defects,  when  examined,  prove  to  be  the  necessary  accompaniment 
of  the  ruling  purpose  of  that  history. 

R.  F.  Horton  concludes  a  careful  consideration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment History  with  the  following  remarks  :  '  We  have  seen,  broadly 
speaking,  that,  regarded  as  historical  compositions,  they  show  the 
marks  of  an  origin  similar  to  that  of  most  other  ancient  historical 
works.  The  writers,  writing  centuries  after  the  events,  rely  upon 
existing  records  which  were  more  or  less  contemporaneous  with  the 
things  recorded  in  them.  Using  these  historical  materials,  very 
much  as  historians  use  materials  still,  the  writers  endeavoured  to 
extract  from  them  a  uniform  and  consistent  narrative;  but  their 
endeavour  is  seldom  quite  successful,  for  a  careful  study  of  their 
books  constantly  reveals  discrepancies  which  are  best  explained  by 
recognising  a  combination  of  different  sources.  .  .  .  From  all  this 
we  are  bound  to  infer  that  Inspired  History  is  not  history  which  in 
its  method  of  composition  and  infallibility  of  detail  is  marked  off 
from  other  Ancient  History.' 


NEW      TESTAMENT. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE. 

HISTORY  A  SECONDARY  FEATURE  IN  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

THE  New  Testament  records  cover  but  a  brief  space  of  time,  as 
compared  with  the  long  ages  that  are  treated  in  the  Old  Testament. 
All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  if  actually  written  by  those 
whose  names  they  bear,  must  have  been  composed  well  within  the 
first  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ ;  and  as  the  creation  of  a 
Christian  literature  could  hardly  have  begun  before  A.D.  40,  the  New 
Testament  represents  the  treasures  preserved  for  us  from  the  writings 
of  only  about  fifty  years. 

Very  few  disputable  questions  of  history,  or  chronology,  are  intro- 
duced, and  those  which  do  occur  are  chiefly  associated  with  inexact 
quotations  from  the  older  Scriptures,  or  with  the  cases  in  which  the 
Old  Testament  records  are  themselves  uncertain. 

Of  our  Lord's  life,  the  only  important  disputable  matters  are,  the 
exact  date  of  His  birth,  and  the  precise  length  of  His  active  ministry. 
As  the  Evangelists  do  not  seem  to  have  designed  a  strict  chrono- 
logical setting  of  the  incidents  of  our  Lord's  life,  it  has  been  found 
impossible  to  construct  any  chronological  order  that  can  be  univer- 
sally acceptable,  by  fitting  together  the  accounts  of  the  four  Evange- 
lists. There  are  evident  instances  of  duplicate  records,  but  we  may 
err  in  making  statements  that  are  nearly  alike  memorials  of  but  one 
event. 

The  epistles  bear  very  slight  relation  to  history,  and  do  but  help 
to  fix  some  of  the  dates  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  paragraphs  contained  in  the 
following  section  are  not  strictly  historical,  but  come  under  the  head- 
ing which  is  chosen  for  the  entire  section,  including  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament — '  Difficulties  relating  to  Matters  of  History.' 


BAPTIZING  OF  PROSELYTES.  169 


Baptizing    of  Proselytes. 

MATTHEW  xxiii.  15  :  'Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye 
:ompass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte.' 

Difficulty. — The  rites  associated  with  the  admission  of  proselytes 
are  not  sufficiently  known  to  form  a  ground  for  requiring  any  particular 
rite  in  cases  of  admission  to  the  Christian  Church. 

Explanation. — Dean  Plumptre  has  collected  what  is  known  con- 
cerning these  baptizing  customs,  which  seem  to  apply  to  those  who 
became  proselytes  of  Righteousness,  or,  as  they  were  also  called, 
Proselytes  of  the  Covenant,  perfect  Israelites.  '  The  proselyte  was 
first  catechized  as  to  his  motives.  If  these  were  satisfactory,  he  was 
first  instructed  as  to  the  Divine  protection  of  the  Jewish  people,  and 
then  circumcised.  A  special  prayer  was  appointed  to  accompany 
the  act  of  circumcision.  Often  the  proselyte  took  a  new  name, 
opening  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  accepting  the  first  that  came. 

'All  this,  however,  was  not  enough.  The  "convert"  was  still  a 
"  stranger."  His  children  would  be  counted  as  bastards — i.e.,  aliens. 
Baptism  was  required  to  complete  his  admission.  When  the  wound 
(of  circumcision)  was  healed,  he  was  stripped  of  all  his  clothes  in 
the  presence  of  the  three  witnesses  who  had  acted  as  his  teachers, 
and  who  now  acted  as  his  sponsors,  the  "  fathers  "  of  the  proselyte, 
and  led  into  the  tank  or  pool.  As  he  stood  there  up  to  his  neck  in 
water,  they  repeated  the  great  commandments  of  the  Law.  These 
he  promised  and  vowed  to  keep,  and  then,  with  an  accompanying 
benediction,  he  plunged  under  the  water.  To  leave  one  hand- 
breadth  of  his  body  unsubmerged  would  have  vitiated  the  whole  rite. 
The  Rabbis  carried  back  the  origin  of  the  baptism  to  a  remote 
antiquity,  finding  it  in  the  command  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxv.  2),  and  of 
Moses  (Exod.  xix.  10).  The  Targum  of  the  Pseudo-Jonathan  inserts 
the  word  "Thou  shalt  circumcise  and  baptize"  in  Exod.  xii.  44. 
Even  in  the  Ethiopic  version  of  Matt,  xxiii.  15,  we  find  "compass 
sea  and  land  to  baptize  one  proselyte."' 

But  the  questions  which  present  difficulty  are  these  :  Was  this 
ritual  observed  as  early  as  the  commencement  of  the  first  century  ? 
If  so,  was  the  baptism  of  John,  or  that  of  the  Christian  Church,  in 
any  way  derived  from,  or  connected  with,  the  baptism  of  proselytes  ? 

The  following  conclusions  are  arrived  at  by  Dean  Plumptre  in  a 
careful  review  of  the  materials  that  are  at  command  :  (i)  There  is 
no  direct  evidence  of  the  practice  being  in  use  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  The  statements  of  the  Talmud  as  to  its  having  come 


1 70      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL*DIFF1CUL TIES. 

from  the  fathers,  and  their  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  are  alike  destitute  of  authority.  (2)  The  negative 
argument,  drawn  from  the  silence  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  the 
Apocrypha,  of  Philo,  and  of  Josephus,  is  almost  decisive  against  the 
belief  that  there  was  in  their  time  a  baptism  of  proselytes,  with  as 
much  importance  attached  to  it  as  we  find  in  the  Talmudists. 

This  must  therefore  be  admitted :  the  supposed  Jewish  ritual  of 
baptism,  before  the  time  of  Christ,  is  a  matter  of  presumption,  and  not 
of  evidence.  The  Christian  rite  cannot  be  safely  founded  on  a  mere 
assumption.  Its  authorization  must  be  obtained  in  some  other 
direction. 

In  further  support  of  a  position  which  may  occasion  some  surprise, 
reference  may  be  made  to  a  note  by  Dean  Mansel,  who  says  :  '  The 
Rabbinical  writers  represent  the  admission  of  proselytes  as  consisting 
of  three  successive  steps — circumcision,  baptism  and  sacrifice.  The 
baptism  of  proselytes  was  regarded  by  the  latter  Rabbis  as  equally 
necessary  with  circumcision,  but  it  is  probable  that  in  earlier  times  it 
was  merely  a  purification,  preliminary  to  the  offering  of  sacrifice  such 
as  is  enjoined  in  other  cases.  After  the  destruction  of  the  Temple, 
when  the  sacrifice  was  no  longer  possible,  the  baptism  seems  to  have 
assumed  the  character  of  an  independent  and  essential  rite,  with 
special  reference  to  the  initiation  of  proselytes ;  but  there  is  no 
evidence  of  its  having  had  this  character  at  earlier  periods  ;  and  the 
absence  of  all  mention  of  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  any  works 
written  while  the  Temple  was  standing,  may  be  regarded  at  least  as  a 
proof  that  it  had  not  at  that  time  assumed  the  importance  which  was 
afterwards  attached  to  it. 

'  On  these  grounds  it  is  concluded  by  Leyrer  that  the  baptism  of 
John  was  not  directly  derived  from  that  administered  to  proselytes, 
though  the  same  idea,  that  of  repentance  and  conversion  from 
spiritual  uncleanness,  was  symbolized  by  both.  But  th:s  symbolism 
may  be  also  found  in  the  purification  commanded  by  the  Mosaic 
Law,  and  it  is  probably  to  these,  and  to  the  figurative  language  of  the 
prophets,  that  we  should  look  to  find  a  precedent  for  the  baptism 
with  water  unto  repentance  administered  by  the  forerunner  of 
Christ.' 


THE  A  CCO  UNTS  OF  SA  ULS  CONVERSION.      1 7 1 


The  Accounts  of  Saul's  Conversion. 

ACTS  ix.  7  :  '  And  the  men  that  journeyed  with  him  stood  speechless,  hearing  a 
voice,  but  seeing  no  man.' 

ACTS  xxii.  9  :  « And  they  that  were  with  me  saw  indeed  the  light,  and  were 
ifraid  ;  hut  they  heard  not  the  voice  of  Him  that  spake  to  me.' 

ACTS  xx vi.  14  :  '  And  when  we  were  all  fallen  to  the  earth,  I  heard  a  voice  saying 
unto  me  in  the  Hebrew  language.' 

Question. — Do  the  differences  in  these  narratives  amount  to  dis- 
crepancies, which  imperil  the  historical  truthfulness  of  the  records  ? 

Answer. — In  such  records  of  incidents  as  are  given  us  in  our 
daily  newspapers  we  constantly  find  similar  differences,  which  often 
amount  to  discrepancies  and  contradictions  ;  but  we  readily  allow  such 
things  to  pass  by,  and  never  think  of  letting  them  spoil  our  general 
impression  of  the  truth  of  the  narrators.  Each  man  will  see  things 
from  his  own  standpoint,  and  only  see  what  is  in  the  field  of  his 
vision.  Each  man  sees  what  he  is  disposed  to  see,  and  puts  some- 
thing of  himself  into  his  seeing.  Absolute  correctness  belongs  to  no 
man's  testimony,  based  on  personal  observation.  We  accept  this 
fact  universally,  and  so  complete  one  man's  witness  by  the  witness  of 
other  men.  We  are  constantly  making  efforts  to  see  things  all  round  ; 
to  see  them  from  various  points  of  view.  We  need  not,  therefore, 
wonder  at  the  very  slight  diversity  in  the  narratives  of  Paul's  con- 
version. 

The  accounts  given  by  Paul  himself,  in  his  two  speeches,  are  in 
complete  \  harmony  :  only  the  early  one,  given  in  a  quieter  mood,  is 
more  full  and  precise.  In  it  he  declares  that  the  people-  did  not  hear, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  comprehend,  the  voice  which  he  himself  heard, 
and  comprehended.  In  the  latter  speech  he  says  he  heard  the  voice, 
but  does  not  make  any  remark  about  the  people,  leaving  us  to 
assume  that  he  heard  the  voice,  and  they  did  not. 

The  Evangelist  Luke  seems  to  contradict  this  by  declaring  that  the 
men  who  journeyed  with  him  heard  a  voice.  The  passages,  however, 
can  be  readily  harmonized  by  understanding  Luke  to  say  the  men 
heard  a  noise,  as  of  a  man's  voice,  but  they  did  not  comprehend 
what  the  voice  uttered.  '  They  did  not  hear  the  words— could  attach 
no  meaning  to  the  sounds  which  for  Saul  himself  had  so  profound  a 
significance.' 

Olshausen  says  :  '  How  this  difference  is  to  be  explained,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principle  that  literal  agreement  must  exist  between  the 
different  narratives  of  Holy  Writ,  I  do  not  see.'  But  his  translator 
puts  the  following  footnote:  *  Surely  the  discrepancies  commented  upon 


172      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

by  the  author  are  merely  apparent,  and  too  much  has  been  made  of 
them.  The  two  statements  :  "  they  heard  a  voice  but  saw  no  man," 
and  "they  heard  nothing,  but  saw  the  light,"  are  by  no  means 
opposed  to  one  another ;  for  surely  they  might  see  the  light  and  yet 
see  no  person,  and  they  might  hear  the  voice  so  far  as  the  sounds  of 
it  were  concerned,  and  yet  not  hear  the  words  which  were  addressed 
to  Paul.  The  two  statements  combined  intimate  that  they  saw  the 
light,  but  saw  not  the  person  of  Jesus,  that  they  heard  the  sound  of 
His  voice,  but  did  not  catch  His  words.' 

The  Fate  of  Judas  Iscariot. 

MATTHEW  xxvii.  3-8  :  '  Then  Judas,  which  betrayed  Him,  when  he  saw  that  He 
was  condemned,  repented  himself,  and  brought  back  the  ttiirty  pieces  of  silver  to 
the  chief  priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  betrayed  innocent  blood. 
But  they  said,  What  is  that  to  us  ?  see  thou  to  it.  And  he  cast  down  the  pieces 
of  silver  into  the  sanctuary,  and  hanged  himself.  And  the  chief  priests  took  the 
pieces  of  silver,  and  said,  It  is  not  lawful  to  put  them  into  the  treasury,  since  it 
is  the  price  of  blood.  And  they  took  counsel,  and  bought  with  them  the  potter's 
field,  to  bury  strangers  in.  Wherefore  that  field  was  called,  The  field  of  blood, 
unto  this  day.' 

ACTS  i.  18,  19  :  '  Now  this  man  obtained  a  field  with  the  reward  of  his  iniquity  ; 
and  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out. 
And  it  became  known  to  all  the  dwellers  at  Jerusalem  ;  insomuch  that  in  their 
language  that  field  was  called  Akeldama,  that  is,  The  field  of  blood.' 

Difficulty. — Both  the  manner  of  Judas'  death,  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the  purchase  of  the  field,  are  so  distinctly  different  as  to  be 
irreconcilable  in  any  natural  and  unforced  way. 

Explanation.— This  must  be  granted.  But  it  is  evident  that, 
upon  such  a  matter,  the  Apostles  would  have  no  direct  and  personal 
knowledge  ;  they  would  be  wholly  dependent  on  current  reports,  the 
gossip  of  the  day,  which  was  as  inexact,  and  uncertain,  as  we  well 
know  it  to  be  now.  Peter's  account  wholly  differs  from  Matthew's. 
Peter  says  Judas  obtained  the  field,  Matthew  says,  the  chief  priests 
bought  the  field  with  the  money  that  Judas  flung  down.  Peter  says : 
Judas  fell  and  killed  himself  in  the  field  he  had  obtained;  but 
Matthew  says  he  hanged  himself,  and  Matthew  does  not  connect  the 
death  with  the  field ;  but  naturally  connects  the  name  of  the  field 
with  the  betrayal  of  Jesus  to  His  death. 

If  these  two  narratives  were  given  in  any  ordinary  book,  we  should 
at  once  say,  that  Matthew's  account  is  manifestly  the  historical  one, 
and  Peter's  the  legendary  and  untrustworthy. 

Professor  Hackett  gives  the  accepted  harmonizing  of  the  passages, 
which  is,  however,  too  strained  and  unnatural,  to  be  readily  accepted. 
'  These  passages  do  not  necessarily  contradict  each  other.  Matthew 
does  not  say  that  Judas,  after  having  hanged  himself,  did  not  fall  to 


THE  FATE  OF  JUDAS  ISCARIOT.  173 

the  ground,  nor,  on  the  contrary,  does  Luke  say  that  Judas  did  not 
hang  himself  before  he  fell  to  the  ground :  and  unless  the  writers 
affirm  the  reality  of  the  events  which  they  respectively  mention  in 
such  a  way  as  to  assert  or  imply  that  if  the  one  event  be  true  the 
other  must  be  false,  it  is  obvious  that  they  do  not  contradict  each 
other.  Of  the  precise  relation  of  the  two  events  in  question  to  each 
other  we  have  no  information,  and  can  affirm  nothing  with  certainty. 
Some  intermediate  circumstance  connected  the  one  with  the  other 
as  parts  of  the  same  transaction,  but  that  circumstance  has  not  been 
recorded.  It  is  conjectured  that  Judas  may  have  hung  himself  on 
the  edge  of  a  precipice  near  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  that,  the  rope 
breaking  by  which  he  was  suspended,  he  fell  to  the  earth  and  was 
dashed  to  pieces.  As  I  stood  in  this  valley,  and  looked  up  to  the 
rocky  heights  which  hang  over  it  on  the  south  side  of  Jerusalem,  I 
felt  that  the  proposed  explanation  was  a  perfectly  natural  one ;  I  was 
more  than  ever  satisfied  with  it.  I  measured  the  precipitous,  almost 
perpendicular  walls,  in  different  places,  and  found  the  height  to  be 
variously  40,  36,  33,  30,  and  25  feet.  Olive-trees  still  grow  quite 
near  the  edge  of  these  rocks,  and,  anciently,  no  doubt,  these  and 
other  trees  were  still  more  numerous  in  the  same  place.  At  the 
bottom  of  these  precipices  are  also  rocky  ledges  on  which  a  person 
would  fall  from  above,  and  in  that  case  not  only  would  life  be 
destroyed,  but  the  body  almost  inevitably  would  be  bruised  and 
mangled.' 

Dean  Plumptre  regards  Acts  i.  18,  19,  as  not  an  integral  part  of 
Peter's  speech,  but  a  note  of  explanation  inserted  by  the  historian : 
'  The  whole  passage  must  be  regarded  as  a  note  of  the  historian,  not 
as  part  of  the  speech  of  Peter.  It  was  not  likely  that  he,  speaking 
to  disciples,  all  of  whom  knew  the  Aramaic,  or  the  popular  Hebrew 
of  Palestine,  should  stop  to  explain  that  Aceldama  meant,  "  in  their 
proper  tongue,"  the  Field  of  Blood.'  'The  horrors  recorded  in 
Acts  may  have  been  caused  by  the  self-murderer's  want  of  skill,  or 
the  trembling  agony  that  could  not  tie  the  noose  firm  enough.' 
Olshausen  takes  the  view  that  verses  18,  19,  do  not  belong  to  the 
original  speech  of  Peter.  He  says :  '  Rather  than  give  assent  to 
forced  interpretations,  we  would  prefer  the  supposition  that  a  twofold 
tradition  obtained  concerning  the  fate  of  Judas,  since  in  such 
secondary  matters,  disparities  otherwise  occur.  Yet  we  must  confess 
that  the  accounts  may  be  so  connected  as  to  permit  the  conjecture 
that  Judas  hanged  himself,  and  falling  down,  was  so  injured  that  his 
bowels  gushed  out.' 

Buxtorf  suggests  that  the   expression   of  St.  Matthew,  'hanged 


174      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

himself,'  might  be  rendered  '  he  was  choked,'  as  if  by  asphyxia,  from 
over-excitement  and  anguish.  He  says  the  Jews  have  so  explained 
the  end  of  Ahithophel,  and  that  a  like  explanation  might  suit  in  the 
Gospel.  St.  Chrysostom  uses  the  expression  to  be  strangled  by  con- 
science. But  these  views  suggest  even  more  serious  difficulties. 

Theophylact  seems  to  think  there  were  two  acts  of  suicide,  one 
abortive  and  one  successful,  and  by  the  aid  of  this  suggestion  recon- 
ciles the  two  accounts.  He  says  the  rope  broke  on  the  first  attempt, 
and,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ..  Judas  flung  himself  off  some 
height. 

Alford  says  :  '  The  various  attempts  to  reconcile  the  two  narratives, 
which  may  be  seen  in  most  of  our  English  commentaries,  are  among 
the  saddest  examples  of  the  shifts  to  which  otherwise  high-minded 
men  are  driven  by  an  unworthy  system.'  Alford  thinks  Luke's 
account  in  the  Acts  is  precise,  and  that  in  Matthew  general.  *  It  is 
obvious  that,  while  the  general  term  used  by  Matthew  points  mainly 
at  self-murder,  the  account  given  in  Acts  does  not  preclude  the  catas- 
trophe related  having  happened,  in  some  way,  as  a  Divine  Judgment, 
during  the  suicidal  attempt.  Further  than  this,  with  our  present 
knowledge,  we  cannot  go.' 

The  Fate  of  Herod  Agrippa. 

ACTS  xii.  23  :  '  And  immediately  an  angel  of  the  Lord  smote  him,  because  he 
gave  not  God  the  glory  :  and  he  was  eaten  of  worms,  and  gave  up  the  ghost.' 

Difficulty. — The  description  of  the  disease  from  ivhich  Herod 
suffered  is  not  consistent  with  the  sudden  death  that  seems  to  be 
implied. 

Explanation.— It  should  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
descriptions  of  disease  given  in  Scripture  are  not  strictly  scientific. 
They  represent  ordinary  observation,  and,  in  such  a  case  as  that  of 
Herod  Agrippa,  reproduce  the  talk  of  the  court  rather  than  any 
proper  medical  report,  or  any  precise  and  direct  knowledge  of  the 
Christian  disciples.  There  are  similar  accounts  of  the  deaths  of  men 
who  have  been  infamous  for  their  persecuting  zeal,  and  there  is  a 
common  notion  that  a  kind  of  poetical  justice  is  done  when  the  per- 
secutor who  has  toroired  the  bodies  of  others  himself  dies  a  miser- 
able, degrading,  and  painful  death.  There  are  many  cases  in  which 
historical  truth  is  sacrificed  for  the  sake  of  this  sentiment  concerning 
what  oug\t  to  have  happened.  Francis  Jacox  has  collected  a  number 
of  illustrations  of  these  'retributive  surprises.'  'So  fond  is  popular 
history  of  teaching  this  sort  of  philosophy  by  examples,  that  examples 


THE  FATE  OF  HEROD  AGRIPPA.  175 

;o  the  purpose  are  widely  accepted  which  are  not  yet  historical. 
Cardinal  Balue,  under  Louis  XL,  is  pointed  out  in  his  iron  cage  as 
i  malignant  inventor  punished  in  and  through  his  own  invention ; 
3ut  Michelet  has  exposed  the  fallacy  of  supposing  "Ralue  the  inventor 
3f  those  iron  cages,  which  had  long  been  known  in  Italy.  The 
French  doctor  Guilloti'n  is  even  now  not  uncommonly  believed  to 
have  perished  in  the  reign  of  terror  by  the  instrument  invented  by, 
ind  named  after,  him;  whereas  he  quietly  died  in  his  bed  many, 
many  years  later  than  that.'  But  it  is  more  to  the  point  to  recall 
how  the  persecuted  Protestants  in  the  active  times  of  the  Inquisition 
delighted  at  the  reports  that  the  leading  Inquisitors  had  died  dreadful 
and  degrading  deaths. 

Herod  the  Great  died  of  some  terrible  form  of  internal  ulceration 
and  corruption,  and  so  did  some  of  the  most  violent  and  self-indulgent 
of  the  Roman  emperors.  Without  more  careful  and  scientific  de- 
scription it  would  seem  to  be  impossible  to  identify  the  disease.  It 
is  very  doubtful  whether  there  is  such  a  disease  as  phthiriasis,  or 
morbus  pedicularis,  which  is  usually  assumed  as  the  disease  of  Herod 
Agrippa ;  but  peculiarly  painful  and  offensive  suffering  sometimes 
ends  the  lives  of  those  who  have  been  unusually  vicious. 

In  the  case  of  Herod  Agrippa  we  must  distinguish  between  what 
the  Bible  states  and  what  the  reader  assumes.  The  language  of 
Luke  is  very  general.  He  merely  narrates  signs  of  a  sudden  attack 
on  the  day  when  a  grand  state  audience  was  given,  the  rapid  develop- 
ment of  disease,  its  taking  revolting  forms,  and  the  patient's  ultimate 
death.  What  is  assumed,  but  not  stated,  by  the  writer,  is  that  the 
beginning  of  the  disease  was  on  the  day  of  audience,  and  that  the 
death  of  the  patient  occurred  on  the  day  that  he  was  smitten.  How- 
ever rapidly  the  disease  may  have  progressed,  all  ulcerous  and  can- 
cerous affections  require  certain  time  for  development,  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  the  miraculous  features  of  this  Divine  judgment  should 
be  unduly  extended. 

Farrar  says  :  '  The  death  of  Herod  Agrippa,  like  that  of  his. grand- 
father, has  been  ascribed  to  phthiriasis,  but  not  by  the  sacred  his- 
torians. It  is,  however,  an  historic  fact  that  many  cruel  tyrants  have 
died  of  ulcerous  maladies,  which  the  popular  rumour  described  much 
as  Lactantius  describes  them  in  his  tract  De  Mortibus  rersecutorum. 
Instances  are  Pheretima  (Herodotus),  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (Mac- 
cabees II.),  Herod  the  Great  (Josephus),  Maximius  Galerius  (Euse- 
bius),  Maximin  (Eusebius),  Claudius  Lucius  Herminianus  (Tertullian), 
Duke  of  Alva,  etc.' 

Dr.  Oswald  Dykes,  after  referring  to  the  blasphemous  flattery  of 


176      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  people,  says  :  '  Presently,  even  as  his  ears  drank  in,  well  pleased, 
the  impious  homage,  he  was  struck  where  he  sat  with  sudden  illness. 
An  angel  from  God  smote  him,  says  St.  Luke.  In  a  state  of  violent 
pain  he  had  to  be  carried  from  the  theatre  to  his  palace,  a  dying 
man.  After  this  shocking  interruption  to  the  ceremony  the  crowd 
broke  up  in  consternation.  The  town  went  into  mourning.  For 
jive  days  long  the  king  lay  in  the  grip  of  his  horrible  and  excruciating 
malady.  On  August  6  the  king  was  dead.  Then  the  false  and 
heartless  mob  that  had  been  ready  to  worship  the  sovereign  while  he 
lived,  and  had  filled  the  streets  with  pretended  lamentations  for  his 
seizure,  gave  themselves  up,  troops  and  populace  together,  to  the 
most  indecent  and  open  rejoicings  over  his  decease,  toasting  the 
tyrant's  end  in  public  banquets,  and  heaping  cowardly  and  brutal 
insults  on  the  royal  princesses.  So,  arnid  lies  and  shame  and  execra- 
tion, there  passed  away  into  corruption  and  the  grave  the  godlike 
Herod.'  For  these  facts  the  authority  of  Josephus  may  be  cited. 
Dr.  Dykes  goes  on  to  ask :  '  Why  should  this  old-world  story  be 
rehearsed  in  Sacred  Writ  ?  Is  it  that  there  was  anything  miraculous 
in  this  man's  illness  ?  or  that  putrid  internal  ulcers,  of  which  Antio 
chus  Epiphanes  and  Herod  the  Great  had  both  died  before  him,  is  2 
disease  specially  fit  to  scourge  the  royal  persecutors  of  the  faith  ?  01 
that  the  sudden  death  of  wicked  men  is  always  to  be  looked  for  ane 
accepted  as  a  special  judgment  from  Almighty  God  ?  No ;  but  tc 
teach  us  that  God  the  Avenger,  with  His  spiritual  ministers  of  judg 
ment,  stands  as  close  beside  wicked  and  impious  sinners,  even  in  the 
hour  of  their  proudest  success,  as,  in  the  night  of  the  saint's  trial 
there  stands  by  him  the  angel  of  deliverance.  The  hand  of  Him  ir 
whom  we  live  can  reach  up  to  the  loftiest  to  pluck  them  down  from  theii 
seats,  as  well  as  down  to  the  lowliest  to  uplift.  If  here  again  we  an 
not  often  suffered  to  see  the  end  as  it  was  seen  in  the  case  of  Heroc 
Agrippa,  if  no  such  dramatic  denouement  should  point  the  moral  of  ; 
selfish  life,  nor  loathsome  death  follow  always  like  a  satire  on  th< 
heels  of  pride,  it  is  not  because  God's  angel  of  wrath  has  not  beei 
standing  all  the  while  beside  the  chair  of  state,  or  at  the  board  o 
luxury ;  it  is  only  that  the  wicked  are  kept  a  little  longer  for  the  da1 
of  their  judgment.' 

The  chief  portions  of  Josephus'  narrative  may  be  given  for  th« 
sake  of  readers  who  have  no  ready  access  to  libraries  :  '  Now  whei 
Agrippa  had  reigned  three  years  over  all  Judaea,  he  came  to  the  cit 
Caesarea,  which  was  formerly  called  Strato's  Tower,  and  there  h 
exhibited  shows  in  honour  of  Caesar,  upon  his  being  informed  tha 
there  was  a  certain  festival  celebrated  to  make  vows  for  his  safet) 


THE  FATE  OF  HEROD  AGR1PPA.  177 

At  which  festival  a  great  multitude  was  gotten  together  of  the 
principal  persons,  and  such  as  were  of  dignity  throughout  his  pro- 
vince. On  the  second  day  of  which  shows  he  put  on  a  garment 
made  wholly  of  silver,  and  of  a  contexture  truly  wonderful,  and  came 
into  the  theatre  early  in  the  morning,  at  which  time  the  silver  of  his 
garment,  being  illuminated  by  the  fresh  reflection  of  the  sun's  rays 
upon  it,  shone  out  after  a  surprising  manner,  and  was  so  resplendent 
as  to  spread  a  dread  and  shuddering  over  those  that  looked  intently 
upon  it,  and  presently  his  flatterers  cried  out,  one  from  one  place 
and  another  from  another  (though  not  for  his  good),  that  he  was  a 
god.  And  they  added  :  "  Be  thou  merciful  to  us,  for  although  we 
have  hitherto  reverenced  thee  only  as  a  man,  yet  shall  we  henceforth 
own  thee  as  superior  to  mortal  nature."  Upon  this  the  king  did 
neither  rebuke  them  nor  reject  their  impious  flattery.  But  as  he 
presently  afterwards  looked  up,  he  saw  an  owl  sitting  upon  a  certain 
rope  over  his  head,  and  immediately  understood  that  this  bird  was 
the  messenger  of  ill  tidings,  as  it  had  once  been  the  messenger  of 
good  tidings  to  him,  and  fell  into  the  deepest  sorrow.  A  violent 
pain  also  arose  in  his  belly,  having  begun  with  great  severity.  He 
therefore  looked  upon  his  friends  and  said  :  "  I  whom  you  call  a  god 
am  commanded  presently  to  depart  this  life,  while  Providence  thus 
reproves  the  lying  words  you  just  now  said  to  me,  and  I  who  was 
called  by  you  immortal  am  immediately  to  be  hurried  away  by  death. 
But  I  am  bound  to  accept  what  Providence  allots,  as  it  pleases  God, 
for  we  have  by  no  means  lived  ill,  but  in  a  splendid  and  happy 
manner."  When  he  had  said  this  his  pain  became  violent.  Accord- 
ingly he  was  carried  into  the  palace,  and  the  rumour  went  abroad 
everywhere  that  he  would  certainly  die  in  a  little  time.  .  .  .  And 
when  he  had  been  quite  worn  out  by  the  pain  in  his  bowels  for  five 
days,  he  departed  this  life.' 

The  Scripture  account  seems  to  recall  the  narrative  of  the  death  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  given  in  2  Maccabees  ix.  5  :  '  The  Lord 
Almighty,  the  God  of  Israel,  smote  him  with  an  incurable  and  in- 
visible plague,  for  as  soon  as  he  had  spoken  these  words  a  pain  of 
the  bowels  that  was  remediless  came  upon  him,  and  sore  torments  of 
the  inward  parts  ...  so  that  the  worms  rose  up  out  of  the  body  of 
this  wicked  man.' 


12 


178     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Saul's  Life  from  Conversion  to  Ministry. 

GALATIANS  i.  15-18  :  *  But  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God  ....  to 
reveal  His  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  Him  among  the  Gentiles  ;  immediately 
I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood  :  neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them 
which  were  apostles  before  me  ;  but  I  went  into  Arabia,  and  again  I  returned  to 
Damascus.  Then  after  three  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  and  abode 
with  him  fifteen  days.' 

Difficulty. — Saul's  account  differ s,  in  material  points,  from* that 
given  in  Acts  ix.  19-30,  which  seems  to  imply  an  early  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem,  and  actual  preachings  in  the  Holy  City. 

Explanation. — It  is  evident  that  the  record  in  the  Acts  is  not 
to  be  taken  as  a  full  and  detailed  account.  It  has  to  be  completed, 
and  even  fitted  up,  by  the  insertion,  in  their  proper  places,  of  the 
personal  references  found  in  the  Epistles.  It  is  not  difficult  to  form 
a  connected  narrative  of  St.  Paul's  early  movements,  by  a  careful 
comparison  of  the  various  notices  which  have  been  preserved. 

Immediately  after  his  conversion,  he  retired  into  Arabia,  by  which 
is  usually  to  be  understood  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  though  the  desert 
districts  lying  eastward  of  Damascus  would  have  provided,  abundantly, 
the  seclusion  he  sought.  The  time  of  his  retirement  cannot  be 
known.  He  mentions  three  years,  but  if  this  is  to  be  dated  from  the 
time  of  his  conversion,  it  included  the  time  of  preaching  in  Damascus, 
which  occasioned  such  active  persecution  that  his  life  was  imperilled. 
From  Arabia  he  returned  to  Damascus,  where  he  had  made  friends. 
Probably  he  hesitated  about  going  to  Jerusalem,  as  the  Christians 
there  could  not  know  what  the  brethren  at  Damascus  did  concerning 
him.  He  was  compelled  to  escape  from  persecution  by  going  into 
the  dangerous  surroundings  of  the  Holy  City. 

The  question  which  is  most  difficult  to  answer  is  this  :  Did  Paul 
(or  Saul)  begin  to  preach  in  the  synagogues  of  Damascus  immediately 
after  his  conversion;  and  did  he  excite  opposition  in  Damascus 
before  he  retired  to  Arabia  ?  This  would  certainly  be  the  first  im- 
pression of  a  reader  of  the  Acts  (ix.  19-30);  but  it  may  fairly  be 
doubted,  because  the  retirement  would  be  sought  for  purposes  of 
mental  and  spiritual  preparation,  and  he  was  not  likely  to  begin 
work  before  he  felt  prepared.  The  analogy  of  Moses,  who  had  his 
desert  experience  before  beginning  his  active  ministry ;  and  the  case 
of  our  Lord,  who  retired  into  the  wilderness  districts  immediately  on 
His  ordination  to  His  mission,  prepare  us  to  expect  that  Saul  (or 
Paul)  would  retire  for  spiritual  preparations  as  soon  as  the  new  con- 
viction had  given  fresh  character  to  his  life.  There  was  so  much 
he  needed  to  think  over. 


SA  ULS  LIFE  FROM  CONVERSION  TO  MINISTR  Y.    179 

Farrar  takes  this  view,  and  gives  reasons  for  his  opinion  drawn  from 
the  probable  mental  moods  of  the  Apostle.  '  A  multitude  of  writers 
have  assumed  that  St.  Paul  first  preached  at  Damascus,  then  retired 
to  Arabia,  and  then  returned,  with  increased  zeal  and  power,  to 
preach  in  Damascus  once  more.  Not  only  is  St.  Paul's  own  language 
unfavourable  to  such  a  view,  but  it  seems  to  exclude  it.  What  would 
all  psychological  considerations  lead  us  to  think  likely  in  the  case  of 
one  circumstanced  as  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  after  his  sudden  and  strange 
conversion  ?  The  least  likely  course — the  one  which  would  place 
him  at  the  greatest  distance  from  all  deep  and  earnest  spirits  who 
have  passed  through  a  similar  crisis — would  be  for  him  to  have 
plunged  at  once  into  the  arena  of  controversy,  and  to  have  passed, 
without  pause  or  breathing-space,  from  the  position  of  a  leading 
persecutor  into  that  of  a  prominent  champion.  In  case  of  men  of 
shallow  nature,  or  superficial  convictions,  such  a  proceeding  is 
possible  ;  but  we  cannot  imagine  it  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  not  thus  with 
souls  which  have  been  arrested  in  mid-career  by  the  heart-searching 
voice  of  God.  Just  as  an  eagle  which  has  been  drenched  and 
battered  by  some  fierce  storm  will  alight  to  plume  its  ruffled  wings, 
so  when  a  great  soul  has  "  passed  through  fire  and  through  water  " 
it  needs  some  safe  and  quiet  place  in  which  to  rest.  The  lifelong  con- 
victions of  any  man  may  be  reversed  in  an  instant,  and  that  sudden 
reversion  often  causes  a  marvellous  change ;  but  it  is  never  in  an 
instant  that  the  whole  nature  and  character  of  a  man  are  transformed 
from  what  they  were  before.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  change 
more  total,  any  rift  of  difference  more  deep,  than  that  which  separated 
Saul  the  persecutor  from  Paul  the  Apostle ;  and  we  are  sure  that — 
like  Moses,  like  Elijah,  like  our  Lord  Himself,  like  almost  every  great 
soul  in  ancient  or  modern  times  to  whom  has  been  entrusted  the  task 
of  swaying  the  destinies  by  moulding  the  convictions  of  mankind — 
like  Sakya  Mouni,  like  Mahomet  in  the  cave  of  Hira,  like  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi  in  his  sickness,  like  Luther  in  the  monastery  of  Erfurt — he 
would  need  a  quiet  period  in  which  to  elaborate  his  thoughts,  to  still 
the  tumult  of  his  emotions,  to  commune  in  silence  and  secrecy  with 
his  own  soul.  It  was  necessary  for  him  to  understand  the  Scriptures  ; 
to  co-ordinate  his  old  with  his  new  beliefs.  It  is  hardly  too  much  to 
say  that  if  Saul — ignorant  as  yet  of  many  essential  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, alien  as  yet  from  the  experience  of  its  deepest  power — had 
begun  at  once  to  argue  with  and  to  preach  to  others,  he  could  hardly 
have  done  the  work  he  did.  To  suppose  that  the  truths  of  which 
afterwards  he  became  the  appointed  teacher  were  all  revealed  to  him 
•  as  by  one  flash  of  light  in  all  their  fulness  is  to  suppose  that  which 

12 2 


i8o     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

is  alien  to  God's  dealings  with  the  human  soul,  and  which  utterly  con- 
tradicts the  phenomena  of  that  long  series  of  Epistles  in  which  we 
watch  the  progress  of  his  thoughts.  Even  on  grounds  of  historic 
probability,  it  seems  unlikely  that  Saul  should  at  once  have  been  able 
to  substitute  a  propaganda  for  an  inquisition.  Under  such  circum- 
stances it  would  have  been  difficult  for  the  brethren  to  trust,  and  still 
more  difficult  for  the  Jews  to  tolerate  him.  The  latter  would  have 
treated  him  as  a  shameless  renegade,  the  former  would  have  mis- 
trusted him  as  a  secret  spy.' 

Professor  Find  lay  says  :  *  The  place  of  the  Arabian  journey  seems 
to  us  to  lie  between  verses  21  and  22  of  Acts  ix.  That  passage  gives 
a  twofold  description  of  Paul's  preaching  in  Damascus,  in  its  earlier 
and  later  stages,  with  a  double  note  of  time  (verses  19  and  23). 
Saul's  first  testimony,  taking  place  "  straightway,"  was,  one  would 
presume,  a  mere  declaration  of  faith  in  Jesus :  "  In  the  synagogues 
he  proclaimed  Jesus  (saying)  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God"  (R.V.), 
language  in  striking  harmony  with  that  of  the  Apostle  in  the  text, 
Gal.  i.  12,  1 6.  Verse  22  presents  a  different  situation.  Paul  is  now 
preaching  in  his  established  and  characteristic  style.' 

The  First  Christian   Council. 

ACTS  xv.  6  :  '  And  the  apostles  and  the  elders  were  gathered  together  to  consider 
of  this  matter.' 

Question. — Did  the  Apostles  and  elders,  at  this  first  council, 
assume  authority  over  the  Churches  ? 

Answer. — The  founders  of  the  early  Christian  Church  were  Jews, 
born  into,  and  trained  in,  Jewish  associations.  When  they  had  to 
organize  the  Christian  disciples,  and  arrange  for  the  order  and 
government  of  the  new  church,  they  could  but  take  as  models  the 
system  with  which  they  were  familiar.  When  separate  worship  had 
to  be  organized,  it  was  inevitable  that  Christian  services  would  be 
modelled  on  the  pattern  of  synagogue  services,  such  modifications  or 
additions  being  made  as  the  fresh  circumstances  and  feelings  de- 
manded In  the  same  way,  when  churches  arose  in  various  places, 
and  Christians,  widely  separated  from  each  other,  needed  some  central 
bond  of  unity,  and  some  outside  authority  to  settle  questions  of 
doctrine,  and  some  direction  towards  securing  uniformity  of  ritual,  it 
was  inevitable  that  a  council  should  be  formed,  similar  to  the  familiar 
council  which  regulated  the  ecclesiastical  opinions  and  practices  of 
Judaism. 

Some  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  Council  will  therefore  help  us  in. 


THE  FIRST  CHRISTIAN  COUNCIL.  181 

an  effort  to  understand  the  Council  formed  in  the  early  Church.  In  a 
previous  passage,  the  Sanhedrin  has  been  fully  described ;  and  it  is 
only  necessary  to  add  that  every  town,  even  every  village,  in  Palestine, 
had  a  little  local  Sanhedrin  of  seven  members,  the  seven  who  con- 
ducted the  synagogue.  Among  these  seven  were  three  leaders, 
called  triumvirs,  who  decided  by  themselves  unimportant  causes. 
They  settled  questions  of  inheritance.  '  The  triumvirs,'  says 
Maimonides,  '  ought  to  have  seven  qualifications :  wisdom,  gentle- 
ness, piety,  hatred  of  mammon,  love  of  truth ;  they  should  be  loved 
of  men,  and  be  of  good  repute.'  The  seven  were  entrusted  with 
the  police  of  the  town  or  village,  and  judged  all  causes  not  involving 
capital  punishment. 

The  officers  of  a  synagogue  formed  a  college  of  elders.  With 
their  head  they  became  a  kind  of  chapter,  managing  the  affairs  of  the 
synagogue,  and  possessing  the  power  of  excommunicating.  Elders, 
in  this  sense,  seem  to  have  been  appointed  for  what  may  be  called 
the  *  Christian  Synagogue.'  Only  some  of  the  Apostles  remained  at 
Jerusalem,  and  they  would  naturally  be  joined  with  the  elders  in  the 
practical  management  of  the  Christian  community.  What  is  to  be 
specially  noticed  is,  that  no  authority  on  other  churches  was  demanded 
by  the  Christian  Council  at  Jerusalem.  They  only  advised  what  was 
most  suitable  ;  and  even  the  advice  did  not  come  from  the  officials, 
but  from  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  which  acted  under  their 
direction.  So  far  as  we  can  gather,  the  first  council  claimed  no 
authority  beyond  that  which  came  from  the  fact  that  the  first 
organized  Christian  community  was  formed  at  Jerusalem,  and  had  the 
advantage  of  the  advice  and  counsel  of  the  Apostles  who  had  been 
with  Jesus. 

'  It  will  be  seen  at  once  how  closely  the  organization  of  the 
synagogue  was  reproduced  in  that  of  the  Ecclesia.  Here  also  there 
was  the  single  presbyter-bishop  in  small  towns,  a  council  of  presbyters 
under  one  head  in  large  cities.  The  legatus  of  the  synagogue  appears 
in  the  angelos,  perhaps  also  in  the  apostolos,  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  presbyters,  or  elders,  discharged  functions  which  were  essentially 
episcopal — that  is,  involving  pastoral  superintendence.  The  existence 
of  a  body  bearing  the  name  of  "  elders  "  is  implied  in  the  narrative  of 
Ananias  (Acts  v.  6).  The  order  itself  is  recognised  in  Acts  xi.  30, 
and  takes  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  in 
Acts  xv.  It  is  transferred  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  the  Gentile 
Churches  in  their  first  missionary  journey  (Acts  xiv.  23).  Of  the 
order  in  which  the  first  elders  were  appointed,  as  of  the  occasion 
which  led  to  the  institution  of  the  office,  we  have  no  record.' 


i82      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

What  is  quite  clear  is,  that  the  authority  belonging  to  the  first 
Christian  Council  was  the  authority  belonging  to  a  conference,  not  to 
any  individuals,  or  to  any  official  position.  Conferences  and  councils 
can  never  assert  dominion  over  faith  and  ritual,  save  in  a  very  limited 
sense.  They  cannot,  indeed,  be  unanimous  enough  to  claim  more 
than  the  right  of  a  majority.  Their  decisions  always  have  this  possible 
weakness  in  them — the  right  may  be  on  the  side  of  the  few  who 
dissent,  or  withhold  their  opposition.  The  result  of  a  conference 
must  always  be  submitted  to  the  judgment,  and  voluntary  acceptance, 
of  those  whom  it  may  concern. 

Dr.  Dykes  skilfully  shows  in  what  an  informal  way  the  early  Church 
gained  its  organization.  '  It  is  true  that  from  the  first  there  was 
order,  for  order  is  essential  to  healthy  life.  Without  order  of  some 
sort  there  could  have  been  no  discipline,  and  Ananias  and  Simon 
show  that  from  the  first  discipline  was  indispensable.  It  is  no  less 
true  that  as  the  church  grew  more  independent  of  the  synagogue,  and 
realized  better  its  corporate  unity,  officers  were  multiplied,  regulations 
were  laid  down,  and  a  polity  and  an  order  of  worship  became 
inevitable.  The  Church  took  its  external  mould  under  the  slow 
pressure  of  providences.  So  far  indeed  was  the  Church  from  being 
launched  in  its  perfect  or  final  shape,  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
say  at  what  point  of  its  slow  development  it  really  became  the  Church 
at  all.  In  fact,  it  might  be  said  that  not  till  Jerusalem  had  welcomed 
Antioch,  and  Antioch  greeted  Jerusalem,  was  there  really  and  truly 
a  Church  free  of  Mosaism  or  Catholic  for  all  men.  Even  after  this 
point  was  reached,  questions  of  organization  and  legislation,  about 
office-bearers,  liturgy,  discipline,  and  the  like  points  of  controversy, 
still  slumbered  among  the  unstirred  difficulties  of  the  future.' 

Dean  Plumptre  says  of  this  conference :  *  The  meeting  rightly 
takes  its  place  as  the  first  in  the  long  series  of  councils,  or  synods, 
which  mark  the  course  of  the  Church's  history.  It  bore  its  witness 
that  the  government  of  the  Christian  Society  was  not  to  rest  in  the 
autocracy  of  a  single  will,  but  in  the  deliberative  decision  of  those 
who,  directly  or  indirectly,  having  been  appointed  by  the  choice,  or 
with  the  approval,  of  the  people,  represented  the  whole  community. 
Presbyters  had  an  equal  voice  with  the  Apostles,  whose  position  was 
analogous  to  that  of  the  later  bishops.  Those  whom  we  should  call 
the  laity  were  present  at  the  deliberations,  and,  though  we  have  no 
proof  that  they  took  part  in  them,  gave  their  vote.' 


THE  SITUATION  OF  GOLGOTHA.  183 


The  Situation  of  Golgotha. 

MATTHEW  xxvii.  33  :  '  And  when  they  were  come  unto  a  place  called  Golgotha, 
hat  is  to  say,  a  place  of  a  skull.' 

Question. — Can  the  late  identification  of  this  place>  by  the  shape 
>/  a  mound  resembling  a  skull,  be  reasonably  accepted  ? 

Answer. — This  place  is  not  mentioned  by  any  Jewish  writer,  and 
antil  quite  recently  the  position  was  wholly  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
A  fourth  century  tradition  identifies  the  spot  with  the  building 
inown  as  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre.  One  eminent  archaeologist 
Df  our  time  (Mr.  James  Fergusson)  identifies  it  with  the  Dome  of  the 
Rock  in  the  Mosque  of  El  Aksa.  Both  sites  were  then  outside  the 
:ity,  but  were  afterwards  enclosed  by  the  third  wall,  built  by 
A.grippa  II. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  place  was  named  Golgotha  on 
account  of  its  skull-like  shape,  and  efforts  have  been  directed  to  the 
discovery  of  such  a  mound  or  hillock,  near  the  city.  Kitto  gives 
suggestive  hints  to  those  who  make  a  search  for  it,  when  he  says : 
'  The  place  of  execution  was  always  outside  the  walls  of  towns.  At 
Jerusalem  it  was  upon  a  swell  of  ground  called  Golgotha — the  place 
of  a  skull — some  say  on  account  of  the  skulls  of  dead  criminals  that 
lay  about  there,  forgetting  that  the  Jews  never  suffered  the  bodies  or 
bones  even  of  criminals  to  remain  unburied.  The  name  was  there- 
fore, doubtless,  derived  from  the  skull-like  shape  of  the  hill ;  for  we 
are  not  bound  to  credit  the  tradition,  that  it  was  thus  named  because 
the  skull  of  Adam  had  been  found  there.'  This  tradition  adds,  that 
as  the  blood  flowed  from  the  sacred  wounds  on  his  skull  his  soul 
was  translated  to  paradise. 

Thenius  was  the  first  to  suggest  identification  with  the  rocky  knoll 
to  the  west  of  Jeremiah's  Grotto,  and  later  explorers  confirm  his 
suggestion.  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson,  Dr.  Selah  Merrill,  C.  R.  Conder, 
and  others,  give  good  evidence  of  the  skull-like  features  of  the  place, 
and  we  strongly  incline  to  the  view  that  the  traditional  site  must 
be  abandoned,  and  this  accepted  as  the  '  most  sacred  spot  of  earth,' 
where  '  our  dear  Lord  was  crucified,  who  died  to  save  us  all.' 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  gives  a  careful  record  of  his  own  personal 
observations,  which  convince  us  of  the  probability  that  the  true  site 
has  been  at  last  recovered.  After  showing  that  the  execution  must 
have  taken  place  on  the  table-land  north  of  the  city,  near  the  road 
leading  from  the  Damascus,  or  St.  Stephen's,  Gate,  which  is  pro- 
bably the  '  old  gate  '  of  Nehemiah,  he  says  :  *  There  is,  however,  one 


184      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

positive  indication  given  by  the  Evangelists  which  is  of  the  greatest 
significance,  and  that  is  the  name  which  they  all  agree  in  giving  to  the 
place  of  crucifixion.  This  name  is  Golgotha,  "  the  skull,"  and  in  its 
Greek  form,  Kranion,  translated  by  the  Latin  Calvary,  Three  of  the 
Evangelists  translate  the  name  as  meaning  "  skull-place."  Luke 
gives  it  simply  as  "  skull."  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
name  arose  from  skulls  being  there,  which,  indeed,  would  have  been 
very  unlikely,  considering  the  laws  and  habits  of  the  Jews  ;  and  the 
name  is  not  "place  of  skulls,"  but  "skull-place,"  or  "skull."  The 
most  probable  reason  of  the  name  is  that  the  place  was  a  knoll  or 
rising  ground,  which  by  its  form  suggested  the  idea  of  a  skull,  and 
so  received  that  name.  Now  there  happens  to  be  outside  the  north 
wall  of  the  city,  but  near  to  it,  about  100  yards  distant,  a  knoll  of 
rock,  of  rounded  form,  and  covered  with  shallow  soil  and  grass 
which,  in  its  form,  and  certain  old  tombs,  which  simulate  sockets  of 
eyes,  has  a  remarkable  resemblance  from  some  points  of  view  to  a 
skull  partly  buried  in  the  ground.  This  resemblance  has  suggested 
itself  to  many  observers,  independently  of  any  supposition  that  it  is 
Golgotha.  It  is  true  that  such  resemblances  depend  very  much  on 
point  of  view,  and  direction  of  light.  But  these  conditions,  as  is  well 
known,  add  to  the  effect,  for  it  flashes  out  upon  us  suddenly  and 
strikingly  when  least  expected ;  and  it  is  this  that  excites  the  popular 
imagination,  and  often  gives  rise  to  a  name.' 

*  Jewish  traditions,  first  ascertained  by  Dr.  Chaplin,  and  cited  by 
Conder,  show  that  this  hill  was  anciently  used  as  a  place  of  execution, 
and  it  is  not  improbably  the  place  where  Stephen  the  proto-martyr 
was  stoned.  It'  is  now  quite  unoccupied,  except  by  some  Moslem 
graves.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  this  place  fulfils  all  the 
other  indications  of  the  Evangelists.  It  is  near  to  the  city,  between 
the  ancient  roads  leading  from  the  Damascus  Gate  and  Herod's  Gate, 
not  distant  from  the  site  of  the  Prsetorium,  and  having  gardens  and 
tombs  close  to  it.  It  is  also  so  situated  as  to  command  a  view  of 
the  whole  city  and  the  Temple,  and  of  the  amphitheatre  of  surround- 
ing hills,  and  there  is  no  other  place  which  fulfils  all  these  conditions. 
Dr.  Fisher  Howe  argues,  in  an  able  manner,  in  favour  of  this  site. 
He  quotes  Van  de  Velde,  Robinson,  and  other  travellers,  in  support 
of  his  view;  and  I  found  that  my  friends,  Dr.  Merrill  and  Dr. 
Chaplin  of  Jerusalem,  who  are  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  topo- 
graphy of  the  city,  were  of  the  same  opinion,  and  it  was  also  adopted 
by  the  late  General  Gordon,  who  had  carefully  surveyed  the  ground, 
and  had  caused  a  model  of  the  hill  to  be  prepared  by  the  sculptor 
Paulus,  of  which  I  have  a  copy  now  before  me,  which,  as  one  turns 


THE  SITUATION  OF  GOLGOTHA.  185 

it  around,  and  exposes  it  to  different  lights,  admirably  shows  the 
peculiar  and  often  startling  effect  of  the  features  of  the  skull.' 

Recent  writers  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  who  have  had  this  suggested 
identification  of  Calvary  before  them,  have  exercised  their  judgments 
on  it,  and  the  results  may  be  briefly  summarized.  The  general  result 
is  decided  approval. 

Farrar  says  :  '  The  data  for  anything  approaching  to  certainty  are 
wholly  wanting ;  and,  in  all  probability,  the  actual  spot  lies  buried 
and  obliterated  under  the  mountainous  rubbish  heaps  of  the  ten- 
times-taken  city.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  enter  into  elaborate 
arguments  about  the  site,  which  may  any  day  be  overthrown  by  a 
discovery  of  the  course  of  the  second  wall.' 

Edersheim  says  :  '  We  cannot  here  explain  the  various  reasons  for 
which  the  traditional  site  must  be  abandoned.  Certain  it  is,  that 
Golgotha  was  "  outside  the  gate,"  and  "  near  the  city."  In  all  likeli- 
hood, it  was  the  usual  place  of  execution.  Lastly,  we  know  that  it 
was  situated  near  gardens,  where  there  were  tombs,  and  close  to  the 
highway.  The  three  last  conditions  point  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  third  wall,  which  afterwards  sur- 
rounded Jerusalem,  was  not  built  until  several  years  after  the  Cruci- 
fixion. The  new  suburb  of  Bezetha  extended  at  that  time  outside 
the  second  wall.  Here  the  great  highway  passed  northwards ;  close  by 
were  villas  and  gardens ;  and  here  also  rock-hewn  sepulchres  have 
been  discovered,  which  date  from  that  period.  But  this  is  not  all. 
The  present  Damascus  Gate  in  the  north  of  the  city  seems,  in  most 
ancient  tradition,  to  have  borne  the  name  of  St.  Stephen's  Gate, 
because  the  proto-martyr  was  believed  to  have  passed  through  it  to 
his  stoning.  Close  by,  then,  must  have  been  the  place  of  execution. 
And  at  least  one  Jewish  tradition  fixes  upon  this  very  spot,  close  by 
what  is  known  as  the  Grotto  of  Jeremiah,  as  the  ancient  "  place  of 
stoning"  (Beth  ha  Segilafi).  And  the  description  of  the  locality 
answers  all  requirements.  It  is  a  weird,  dreary  place,  two  or  three 
minutes  aside  from  the  high-road,  with  a  high,  rounded,  skull-like  rocky 
plateau,  and  a  sudden  depression,  or  hollow,  beneath,  as  if  the  jaws 
of  that  skull  had  opened.  Whether  or  not  the  "  tomb  of  the  Herodian 
period  in  the  rocky  knoll  to  the  west  of  Jeremiah's  Grotto  "  was  the 
most  sacred  spot  on  earth — the  "  Sepulchre  in  the  Garden,"  we  dare 
not  positively  assert,  though  every  probability  attaches  to  it.' 

Fallings  says  :  '  Golgotha  may  have  been  rightly  identified  with  the 
rounded  knoll  near  Jeremiah's  Grotto,  just  outside  the  present 
Damascus  Gate.  But  the  excavation  of  the  newly-discovered  wall 
must  be  completed  before  opinion  can  utter  its  last  word.  The  knoll 


i86      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

is  higher  than  the  sacred  rock  of  the  Temple.  "  A  sort  of  amphi- 
theatre is  formed  by  the  gentle  slopes  on  the  west ;  and  the  whole 
population  of  the  city  might  easily  witness  from  the  vicinity  anything 
taking  place  on  the  top  of  the  cliff.  The  knoll  is  just  beside  the 
main  north  road"  "The  hill  is  now  quite  bare,  with  scanty  grass 
covering  its  rocky  soil."  It  has  been  discovered  to  be  the  traditional 
place  of  stoning.  And  the  probability  of  the  identification  gains 
ground.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  it  was  the  usual  place  of 
execution.' 

Stalker  thinks  the  name  Golgotha  probably  refers  to  the  ghastly 
relics  of  the  tragedies  happening  at  the  usual  place  of  execution,  which 
might  be  lying  about.  And  he  asserts  that  the  place  cannot  now  be 
identified. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary ',  in  an  Additional  Note,  vol.  i.,  p.  190, 
argues  strongly  in  favour  of  the  traditional  site,  the  evidence  in 
support  of  which  it  considers  to  be  strong,  and  well-nigh  conclusive  ; 
the  only  disputable  question  being  whether  it  was  within,  or  outside 
the  second  wall  of  the  city.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
suggestion  of  Thenius,  which  is  given  above,  and  so  ably  supported, 
has  received  due  consideration  from  the  writer. 

Canon  Liddon^  after  referring  to  Mr.  Fergusson's  curious  notion, 
that  the  true  site  of  the  sepulchre  was  that  of  the  present  so-called 
Mosque  of  Omar  in  the  Temple  area,  adds :  '  A  more  plausible 
opinion,  warmly  upheld,  among  others,  by  the  late  General  Gordon, 
is  that  it  is  in  a  garden  at  the  foot  of  the  striking  hill  which  is  just  out- 
side the  Gate  of  Damascus.  This  site  is  so  much  more  picturesque  and 
imposing  than  the  traditional  one,  that,  had  there  been  any  evidence 
in  its  favour  in  Constantine's  day,  it  would  certainly  have  been 
adopted.  The  old  belief  is  likely  to  hold  its  ground  unless  one  thing 
should  happen.  We  know  that  our  Lord  was  crucified  and  buried 
outside  the  Gate  of  Jerusalem.  If  excavations  ever  should  show  that 
the  second — that  is,  in  our  Lord's  day,  the  outer— wall  of  the  city 
embraced  the  site  of  the  sepulchre  within  its  circuit,  then  it  would  be 
certain  that  the  traditional  site  is  not  the  true  one.' 


DIFFERING  RECORDS  OF  OUR  LORDS  INFANCY.    187 


Differing   Records  of  our  Lord's  Infancy. 

LUKE  ii.  39  :  «  And  when  they  had  accomplished  all  things  that  were  according 
o  the  law  of  the  Lord,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Nazareth.' 

MATTHEW  ii.  22,  23  :  '  But  when  he  heard  that  Archelaus  was  reigning  over 
iudea  in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod,  he  was  afraid  to  go  thither;  and  being 
-varned  of  God  in  dream,  he  withdrew  into  the  parts  of  Galilee,  and  came  and 
Iwelt  in  a  city  called  Nazareth.' 

Difficulty. — Matthew  and  Luke  distinctly  differ  as  to  the  time  and 
lhe  circumstances  of  the  return  to  Nazareth. 

Explanation. — Omissions  should  never  be  confused  with  con- 
:radictions.  Fuller  information  on  matters  of  detail  in  no  way 
mpugns  the  correctness  of  a  general  account  of  the  leading  facts. 
Luke  fixes  the  fact  that  the  return  to  Galilee  was  subsequent  to  the 
presentation  in  the  Temple,  but  he  says  nothing  concerning  the 
nterval  between  the  presentation  and  the  return.  Sequence  he 
iffirms,  but  immediate  sequence  he  does  not  affirm,  though  that  would 
DC  our  assumption,  if  we  had  his  words  only,  and  no  correction 
hrough  Matthew's  record  of  intervening  events. 

It  should  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  four  Gospels  are  not 
ives  of  Christ  in  any  such  sense  as  we  now  attach  to  that  term. 
They  are  properly  '  reminiscences,'  we  might  even  say  '  contributions 
:owards  the  formation  of  a  life  of  Christ,'  and  therefore  completeness 
s  not  to  be  looked  for,  but  the  records  preserved  by  each  are  to  be 
skilfully  fitted  to  the  records  given  by  the  others. 

This  matter  is  an  interesting  one,  because  it  shows  the  genuine- 
less  of  each  narrative,  the  independence  of  each  Evangelist. 
Matthew  could  not  have  compared  his  work  with  Luke's,  or  Luke 
vith  Matthew's,  or  such  a  simple  divergency  would  have  been 
ectified. 

From  Matthew  we  can  fill  in  the  interval  between  the  presentation 
ind  the  renewed  residence  at  Nazareth.  It  probably  included  the 
;isit  of  the  Magi,  the  massacre  of  the  infants,  the  flight  into  Egypt, 
ind  the  Divinely-guided  return,  with  the  reason  for  not  making  a 
)ermanent  settlement  in  Bethlehem. 

Farrar  says  all  that  need  be  said  on  this  subject :  '  It  is  difficult 
o  believe  that  either  of  the  Evangelists  had  seen  the  narrative  of  the 
)ther,  because  the  prima  facie  inference  from  either  singly  would  be 
mperfectly  correct.  They  supplement  each  other,  because  they  each 
mrrate  the  truth,  though  probably  neither  of  them  was  aware  of  all 
hat  has  been  delivered  to  us.' 


i88      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Dates  of  John's  Imprisonment  and   Death. 

MATTHEW  xiv.  3  :  '  For  Herod  had  laid  hold  on  John,  and  bound  him,  and  put 
him  in  prison,  for  the  sake  of  Herodias,  his  brother  Philip's  wife.' 

Question. —  Will  not  a  decision  an  these  dates  aid  in  settling  the 
order  of  events  in  our  Lord's  life  ? 

The  materials  for  forming  a  decision  are  not  at  command.  No 
one  has  succeeded  in  putting  the  events  of  either  John  Baptist's  life 
or  our  Lord's  life  into  an  order  that  can  be  universally  accepted.  We 
may,  however,  consider  what  materials  can  be  supplied  as  a  basis  on 
which  a  judgment  may  be  formed. 

Comparing  together  Matt.  iv.  12,  'Now  when  Jesus  had  heard 
that  John  was  cast  into  prison,  He  departed  into  Galilee,'  and  Mark 
i.  14,  '  Now  after  that  John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesus  came  into 
Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,'  we  learn  that 
the  imprisonment  of  John  took  place  a  little  time  before  our  Lord's 
second  visit  to  Galilee.  For  the  incidents  of  that  second  visit,  see 
John  iv.  43-54- 

Another  point  seems  to  be  well  defined.  The  Baptist  was  living 
at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  third  visit  to  Galilee,  for  he  sent  two  of  his 
disciples  with  an  inquiry  while  our  Lord  was  preaching  in  the  cities 
of  Galilee  (Matt.  xi.  2).  He  seems  to  have  been  put  to  death  soon 
after,  for  the  tidings  came  to  Jesus  while  in  Galilee,  and  towards  the 
close  of  His  third  visit.  This  will  make  John's  imprisonment  to  have 
lasted  nearly  twelve  months,  and  his  death  to  have  occurred  in  our 
Lord's  second  ministerial  year. 

Very  much  depends  on  the  decision  we  make  concerning  the  feast 
referred  to  in  John  v.  i,  *  After  this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews, 
and  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.'  It  is  usual  to  regard  this  as  a 
Passover,  but  Wieseler,  and  some  other  modern  critics,  think  it  was 
Purim.  (See  a  later  paragraph  on  the  '  Unknown  Feast.')  Then  we 
can  only  fit  together  the  narratives  by  assuming  that  John's  imprison- 
ment only  lasted  three  weeks  or  a  month.  In  favour  of  this  view,  it 
may  be  added  that  so  unscrupulous  a  woman  as  Herodias  was  not 
likely  to  wait  twelve  long  months  before  getting  her  revenge. 

Dr.  E.  R.  Conder  thinks  the  imprisonment  must  have  lasted  the 
greater  part  of  two  years,  from  May,  A.D.  27,  to  the  spring  of  A.D.  29} 
when  he  was  put  to  death  by  the  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  Herod  Antipas. 
*  Assuming  the  Passover  named  in  John  vi.  4  to  be  that  of  A.D.  29 
(and  the  third  in  our  Lord's  ministry),  we  infer  the  date  of  John's 
death  from  the  following  facts :  The  account  of  the  imprisonmen 


PHILIPPI  AS  A  COLONY.  189 

and  murder  of  John  is  given  in  Matt.  xiv.  i-n,  Mark  vi.  14-29,  intro- 
duced in  both  cases  with  the  statement  that  Herod,  hearing  the  fame 
of  Jesus,  concluded  that  John  was  risen  from  the  dead  (comp.  Luke 
ix.  7-9).  Matthew  relates  that  John's  disciples,  having  buried  his 
corpse,  brought  the  tidings  of  his  death  to  Jesus,  and  that  after 
hearing  of  it,  'Jesus  departed  thence  by  ship  into  a  desert  place 
apart '  (Matt.  xiv.  12,1 3).  Mark  and  Luke  state  this  retreat  to  the 
desert  to  have  been  in  company  with  the  twelve,  immediately  on 
their  return  from  their  mission  (Mark  vi.  30-32  ;  Luke  ix.  10).' 

All  that  can  confidently  be  said  is  that  John's  death  occurred 
towards  the  close  of  the  second  year  of  our  Lord's  ministry ;  and  we 
incline  to  the  view  that  the  imprisonment  had  lasted  but  a  brief 
period. 


Philippi  as  a  Colony. 


ACTS  xvi.  12  :  '  And  from  thence  to  Philippi,  which  is  a  city  of  Macedonia,  the 
first  of  the  district,  a  Roman  colony.' 

Question. — In  what  sense  was  Philippi  a  colony,  and  what  signifi- 
cance attaches  to  the  mention  of  the  fact? 

It  is  singular  that  St.  Paul  should  appeal  to  his  rights  as  a  Roman 
citizen,  and  that  the  magistrates  of  Philippi  should  be  so  gravely 
anxious  when  they  found  out  that  they  had  scourged  a  Roman 
citizen.  St.  Paul's  appeal,  and  the  alarm  of  the  magistrates,  are 
only  explained  by  the  fact  that  Philippi  enjoyed  the  privileges  of  a 
Roman  colony. 

The  references  to  Philippi  in  contemporary  profane  history  are 
but  slight.  It  received  its  name  from  Philip,  King  of  Macedonia, 
father  of  Alexander  the  Great,  who  rebuilt  and  fortified  it.  Its  fame 
was  increased  by  the  defeat  in  its  neighbourhood  of  Brutus  and 
Cassius  by  Augustus  Caesar  and  Antony  in  the  year  B.C.  42. 

Pliny,  the  celebrated  heathen  historian,  who  flourished  in  the  same 
century  as  Luke,  and  who  could  not  be  suspected  of  any  sympathy 
with  him  or  his  despised  religion,  makes  mention  of  Philippi  as  a 
colony.  And  a  number  of  coins  have  been  found,  some  testifying  of 
Philippi  under  the  character  of  a  colony,  and  one  in  particular  stating 
that  Julius  Caesar  himself  bestowed  on  this  city  the  dignity  and 
privileges  of  a  Roman  colony,  which  was  afterwards  confirmed  and 
augmented  by  Augustus.  The  full  title,  '  Colonia  Augusta  Julia 
Victrix  Philippensium,'  is  found  on  inscriptions. 

Archdeacon  Farrar  sums  up  briefly  the  history  of  this  town,  and 
gives  an  explanation  of  the  relation  in  which  it  stood  to  neighbouring 
towns.  (Its  being  called  the  chief  city,  as  in  A.V.,  has  occasioned 


i9o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

difficulty,  as  it  was  in  no  sense  a  capital.)  'The  city  of  Philippi  was 
a  monumental  record  of  two  vast  empires.  It  had  once  been  an 
obscure  place,  called  Krenides  from  its  streams  and  springs;  but 
Philip,  the  father  of  Alexander,  had  made  it  a  frontier  town  to  protect 
Macedonia  from  the  Thracians,  and  had  helped  to  establish  its 
power  by  the  extremely  profitable  working  of  its  neighbouring  gold 
mines.  Augustus,  proud  of  the  victory  over  Brutus  and  Cassius — 
won  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on  which  it  stands,  and  on  the  summit  of 
which  Cassius  had  committed  suicide — elevated  it  to  the  rank  of  a 
colony,  which  made  it,  as  St.  Luke  calls  it,  if  not  the  first,  yet  certainly 
"  a  first  city  of  that  district  of  Macedonia."  '  (Bishop  Wordsworth 
reads:  'the  chief  city  of  the  frontier  of  Macedonia.')  'And  this, 
probably,  was  why  St.  Paul  went  directly  to  it.  When  Perseus,  the 
last  successor  of  Alexander,  had  been  routed  at  Pydna  (June  22, 
B.C.  1 68),  Macedonia  had  been  reduced  to  a  Roman  province  in  four 
divisions.  These,  in  accordance  with  the  astute  and  Machiavellic 
policy  of  Rome,  were  kept  distinct  from  each  other  by  differences  of 
privilege  and  isolation  of  interests  which  tended  to  foster  mutual 
jealousies.  Beginning  eastwards  at  the  river  Nestus,  Macedonia 
Prima  reached  to  the  Strymon,  Macedonia  Secunda  to  the  Axius, 
Macedonia  Tertia  to  the  Peneus,  and  Macedonia  Quarta  to  Illyricum 
and  Epirus.  (So  says  Livy.)  The  capitals  of  these  divisions  respec- 
tively were  Amphipolis,  Thessalonica — at  which  the  Proconsul  of  the 
entire  province  fixed  his  residence — Pella,  and  Pelagonia.  It  is  a 
very  reasonable  conjecture  that  Paul,  in  answer  to  the  appeal  of  the 
vision,  had  originally  intended  to  visit — as,  perhaps,  he  ultimately 
did  visit — all  four  capitals.  But  Amphipolis,  in  spite  of  its  historic 
celebrity,  had  sunk  into  comparative  insignificance,  and  the  proud 
colonial  privileges  of  Philippi  made  it  in  reality  the  more  important 
town.' 

Conybeare  and  How  son  'give  the  characteristic  features  of  a  '  colony,' 
which  was  a  miniature  resemblance  of  Rome,  its  citizens  sharing  in 
the  privileges  of  the  citizens  of  Rome.  '  The  city  of  Rome  might  be 
transplanted,  as  it  were,  into  various  parts  of  the  empire,  and  repro- 
duced as  a  colonia ;  or  an  alien  city  might  be  adopted,  under  the 
title  of  a  municipium*  into  a  close  political  communion  with  Rome. 
A  Roman  colony  was  very  different  from  anything  which  we  usually 
intend  by  the  term.  It  was  no  mere  mercantile  factory,  such  as 
those  which  the  Phoenicians  established  in  Spain,  or  on  those  very 
shores  of  Macedonia  with  which  we  are  now  engaged,  or  such  as 
modern  nations  have  founded  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Territory,  or  on 
*  A  colonia  was  Rome  transplanted  :  a  municipium  was  an  alien  city  adopted. 


PHILIPPI  AS  A  COLONY.  191 

the  coast  of  India.  Still  less  was  it  like  those  incoherent  aggregates 
of  human  beings  which  we  have  thrown,  without  care  or  system,  on 
distant  islands  and  continents.  It  did  not  even  go  forth,  as  a  young 
Greek  republic  left  its  parent  state,  carrying  with  it,  indeed,  the 
respect  of  a  daughter  for  a  mother,  but  entering  upon  a  new  and  in- 
dependent existence.  The  Roman  colonies  were  primarily  intended 
as  military  safeguards  of  the  frontiers,  and  as  checks  upon  insurgent 
provincials.  Like  the  military  roads,  they  were  part  of  the  great 
system  of  fortification  by  which  the  Empire  was  made  safe.  They 
served  also  as  convenient  possessions  for  rewarding  veterans  who  had 
served  in  the  wars,  and  for  establishing  freedmen  and  other  Italians 
whom  it  was  desirable  to  remove  to  a  distance.  The  colonists  went 
out  with  all  the  pride  of  Roman  citizens  to  represent  and  reproduce 
the  city  in  the  midst  of  an  alien  population.  Though  the  colonists,  in 
addition  to  the  poll  tax  which  they  paid  as  citizens,  were  compelled 
to  pay-  a  ground  tax  (for  the  land  on  which  their  city  stood  was  pro- 
vincial land,  and  therefore  tributary,  unless  it  were  assimilated  to 
Italy  by  a  special  exemption),  yet  they  were  entirely  free  from  any 
intrusion  by  the  governor  of  the  province.  Their  affairs  were  regu- 
lated by  their  own  magistrates.  These  officers  were  named  Duum- 
viri, and  they  took  a  pride  in  calling  themselves  by  the  Roman  title 
of  Praetors  (strategoi)' 

1  By  the  Lex  Portia  (B.C.  247),  Roman  citizens  were  exempted  from 
degrading  punishment,  such  as  that  of  scourging.  It  was  the  heaviest 
of  all  the  charges  brought  by  Cicero  against  Verres,  the  Governor  of 
Sicily,  that  he  had  broken  this  law.  The  words  avis  Romanus  sum 
(I  am  a  Roman  citizen)  acted  almost  like  a  charm  in  stopping  the 
violence  of  provincial  magistrates.  These  strategoi  at  Philippi,  when 
they  found  the  prisoners  were  Romans,  evidently  did  not  consider 
that  their  ignorance  would  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  defence.  They 
had  acted  illegally,  and  the  consequence  of  that  illegality  went 
further  than  they  counted  on ;  but  they  could  not,  therefore,  shake 
off  their  responsibility.  They  were  liable  to  a  prosecution.'  (Dean 
Plump tre.} 

History  of  Jewish  Stoning. 

ACTS  vii.  59  :  '  And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  God,  and  saying,  Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.' 

Question. — How  was  it  that  the  Sanhedrin  could  do  with  Stephen 
as  they  dare  not  do  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Answer. — In  all  probability,  the  absence  of  the  Roman  procurator 
made  this  tumultuous  stoning  possible.  If  this  is  not  a  satisfactory 


192      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

explanation — and  some  may  say,  that  the  Roman  authority  would  be 
delegated  to  somebody,  if  the  governor  was  absent — then  we  may 
regard  the  riot  as  an  unexpected  tumult,  and  both  the  people  and  the 
Sanhedrin  acted  under  powerful  and  sudden  excitement,  without 
thinking  of  the  consequences  of  their  act.  Then  we  must  suppose 
that  the  authorities  would  make  necessary  explanations  to  the  Roman 
ruler  after  the  deed  was  done,  excusing  themselves  on  the  ground  of 
the  uncontrollable  excitement  of  the  people. 

Dean  Plumptre  says :  '  The  violence  reported  presents  a  singular 
contrast  to  the  general  observance  of  the  forms  of  a  fair  trial  in  our 
Lord's  condemnation.  Then,  however,  we  must  remember,  the 
Roman  procurator  was  present  in  Jerusalem.  Now,  all  restraint  was 
removed,  and  fanaticism  had  full  play.  That  neither  office  nor  age 
was  enough  to  guard,  under  such  conditions,  against  shameful  out- 
rage has  been  seen  even  in  the  history  of  Christian  assemblies,  as, 
e.g.,  in  that  of  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  in  A.D.  449.  The  facts 
in  this  case  seem  to  imply  that  the  accusers,  and  perhaps  also  the 
excited  crowd  which  they  represented,  were  present  as  listening  to 
the  speech,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.' 

To  understand  how  such  an  informal  execution  could  be  possible, 
it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  there  were  two  kinds  of  stoning 
permissible;  an  official  stoning,  and  a  tumultuous  stoning.  The 
methods  of  these  differed  in  some  important  respects. 

( Stoning  to  death  was  the  ordinary  capital  punishment  among  the 
Jews,  just  as  much  as  hanging  is  with  us,  decapitation  in  France  and 
Germany,  and  strangulation  in  Spain.  The  manner  of  execution  was 
as  follows  :  A  crier  marched  before  the  man  who  was  to  die,  pro- 
claiming his  offence,  and  the  names  of  the  witnesses  on  whose 
testimony  he  had  been  committed.  This  was  for  the  humane 
purpose  of  enabling  anyone,  possessing  knowledge  of  the  parties  and 
the  circumstances,  to  come  forward  and  arrest  the  execution  until 
his  further  evidence  had  been  heard  and  considered.  Hence,  usually, 
the  tribunal  which  had  sentenced  the  prisoner  remained  sitting  to 
hear  such  evidence  as  might  thus  be  produced,  and  did  not  rise 
until  certified  that  the  execution  had  taken  place.  The  place  of 
execution  was  always  outside  the  town.  Arrived  at  the  place,  the 
convict  was  divested  of  his  clothing,  except  a  small  covering  about 
the  loins  ;  and,  his  hands  being  bound,  he  was  taken  to  the  top  of 
some  eminence — a  tower,  a  building,  or  a  cliff — not  less  than  twice  a 
man's  height.  When  the  top  was  reached,  the  witnesses  laid  their 
hands  upon  him,  and  then  cast  off  their  upper  clothing,  that  they 
might  be  the  more  ready  for  the  active  exertion  their  position  imposed 


HISTORY  OF  JEWISH  STONING.  193 

—being  virtually  that  of  executing  the  sentence  which  had  been  the 
•esult  of  their  evidence.  All  being  thus  ready,  one  of  the  witnesses 
:ast  the  condemned  down  from  that  high  place  with  great  violence, 
endeavouring  to  do  it  so  that  he  should  fall  upon  a  large  stone,  which 
vvas  designedly  placed  below.  The  fall  usually  rendered  him  in- 
sensible, if  it  did  not  kill  him ;  but  if  he  was  not  dead,  those  below 
turned  him  upon  his  back,  and  then  the  other  witnesses,  remaining 
above,  cast  down  a  large  stone  aimed  at  the  chest.  This  stroke  was 
generally  mortal ;  but  if  not,  the  people  below  hastened  to  cast 
stones  at  him  till  no  life  remained.  Thus  the  execution  was  quickly 
over,  and  was  attended  by  fewer  revolting  circumstances  than  must 
have  ensued  from  that  indiscriminate  pelting  by  the  people,  which  is 
commonly  supposed  to  have  constituted  the  stoning  to  death.' 
(From  Kitto.) 

There  are  also  many  examples  of  a  more  tumultuous  kind  of 
stoning,  when,  without  judicial  procedure,  the  people  seized  stones  at 
once  to  put  to  death  those  whom  they  deemed  guilty  of  flagrant 
crime.  This  is  said  to  have  been  called  the  '  Rebel's  beating  ' :  and 
it  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as  permissible  in  the  case  of 
blasphemy,  when  a  sudden  vindication  of  the  dishonoured  name  of 
God  seemed  to  be  called  for,  and  aroused  feeling  could  not  wait  for 
any  judicial  process.  In  some  cases,  such  as  that  of  Naboth  and 
that  of  Stephen,  the  tumultuous  and  the  judicial  seem  to  be 
blended  :  the  forms  of  law  merely  giving  a  kind  of  sanction  to  the 
popular,  or  class,  excitement.  Of  manifestly  tumultuous  stonings  we 
may  mention  that  of  Adoram,  tribute-master  to  Rehoboam.  '  Then 
King  Rehoboam  sent  Adoram,  who  was  over  the  tribute ;  and  all 
Israel  stoned  him  with  stones  that  he  died'  (i  Kings  xii.  18).  Of 
our  Lord  it  is  said,  'Then  took  they  up  stones  10  cast  at  Him/ 
'  Then  the  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  stone  Him.'  And  in  a  riot 
raised  at  Lystra  by  certain  Jews  from  Antioch  and  Iconium,  the 
people  '  stoned  Paul,  and  drew  him  out  of  the  city,  supposing  he  had 
been  dead '  (Acts  xiv.  19). 

1  It  is  noticeable  that  we  first  hear  of  death  by  stoning  in  the 
deserts  of  stony  Arabia ;  this  mode  having  been  suggested  probably 
by  the  abundance  of  stones,  and  the  fatal  effect  with  which  they  were 
often  employed  in  broils  among  the  people.'  What  seems  probable 
is,  that  at  first  the  people  merely  pelted  the  bound  criminal  with  the 
stones  lying  about  until  he  died.  But  as  this  was  found  to  excite 
passion,  and  lead  to  painful  and  demoralising  scenes,  the  execu- 
tions were  regulated,  and  subjected  to  orderly  arrangements,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  bring  the  criminal  to  his  end  as  expedi- 

'3 


i94      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

tiously  as  possible,  and  to  divest  the  punishment  of  a  tumultuary 
aspect 

Kitto  points  out  the  tumultuous  character  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
case  of  Stephen.  'The  defence  itself  is  interrupted  by  the  un- 
governable rage  of  those  who  heard  it ;  and  when  Stephen  declared 
that  he  saw  Jesus  standing  at  God's  right  hand,  they  stayed  to  hear 
no  more,  but  rushed  upon  him,  and  hurried  him  away  to  death.  The 
matter  reached  a  point  at  which  they  might  have  felt  authorised  to 
act  without  the  usual  formalities.  The  words  Stephen  uttered  sounded 
in  their  ears  as  rank  blasphemy ;  and,  when  that  was  the  case,  the 
Jews  seem  always  to  have  been  ready  to  stone  a  man  on  the  spot 
without  any  trial.' 

There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  so  unusual  a  case  as  this,  incon- 
sistent with  the  view  that  the  Romans  had  divested  the  Sanhedrin 
of  the  sovereign  power  of  inflicting  capital  punishment 


Precise  Date  of  the  Last  Supper. 

MATTHEW  xxvi.  17  :  'Now  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  the  disciples 
came  to  Jesus,  saying,  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we  make  ready  for  Thee  to  eat  the 
Passover  ?' 

Difficulty. — A  comparison  of  the  Gospel  records  leaves  us  uncertain 
whether  the  usual  Passover-day  was  anticipated  on  this  occasion  or 
not. 

Explanation. — We  shall  see  precisely  what  this  difficulty  is  if 
we  put  together  the  passages  referring  to  the  matter  from  the  four 
Gospels,  giving  them  in  the  Revised  Version. 

Besides  the  text  given  above,  as  the  heading  of  this  paragraph, 
Matthew  says  :  *  Now  when  even  was  come '  (evidently,  even  of  the 
'  first  of  unleavened  bread '),  '  He  was  sitting  at  meat  with  the  twelve 
disciples.'  The  day  following  was  clearly  not  one  of  the  feast  days, 
since  the  arrest  and  trial  and  crucifixion  were  all  completed  before 
the  sacred  festal  Sabbath  day  began. 

But  this  suggests  some  further  inquiries.  Was  the  Passover  meal 
always  the  eve  of  a  Sabbath  day  ?  or  did  it  only  so  happen  on  this 
particular  year?  If  all  the  people  observed  the  Passover  on  the 
same  day  as  Jesus  and  His  disciples  did,  we  are  landed  in  this  very 
practical  difficulty — the  feast-time  then  began,  and  the  next  day  was 
a  sacred  feast  day ;  and  we  know  that  the  high  priest's  party  advised 
strongly  against  arresting  Jesus '*  on  the  feast  day,' lest  there  should 
be  an  uproar  of  the  people  (Matt.  xxvi.  5). 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  reasonable  suggestion  certainly  is,  that  Christ 


PRECISE  DATE  OF  THE  LAST  SUPPER.         195 

anticipated  the  usual  Passover-time,  and  observed  the  ordinance  a 
day  earlier.  Only  in  the  light  of  very  clear  proofs  can  this,  our  first 
impression,  be  removed. 

Mark's  references  are  precisely  similar  to  those  in  Matthew. 

Luke  is  more  precise.  '  Now  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  drew 
nigh,  which  is  called  the  Passover.'  '  And  the  day  of  unleavened  bread 
came,  on  which  the  Passover  must  be  sacrificed.  And  He  sent  Peter 
and  John,  saying,  Go  and  make  ready  for  us  the  Passover,  that  we 
may  eat.'  We  should  certainly  gather  from  this  that  the  day  was 
the  usual  day,  and  that  our  Lord  kept  the  Passover  when  everybody 
else  kept  it. 

John's  record  creates  the  great  difficulty.  Writing  of  procedures 
after  the  examination  of  Christ  before  the  Sanhedrin,  he  says  :  '  They 
lead  Jesus,  therefore,  from  Caiaphas  into  the  palace :  and  it  was 
early ;  and  they  themselves  entered  not  into  the  palace,  that  they 
might  not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  Passover.'  The  chief  priests 
and  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  could  not  have  partaken  of  the 
Passover  at  the  same  time  as  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  for  it  is  clearly 
stated  that  they  were  anxiously  keeping  themselves  undefined  in 
expectation  of  eating  the  Passover  that  night. 

Matthew  and  John,  the  Evangelists  who  had  personal  knowledge 
of  Christ's  doings,  and  Mark,  who  represents  Peter,  who  also  had 
personal  knowledge,  can  be  fitted  to  the  idea  that  our  Lord  antici- 
pated the  usual  day,  and  held  His  Passover  on  the  day  previously. 
Luke's  materials  are  second-hand,  and  if  .there  is  lack  of  precision 
anywhere,  we  may  expect  it  in  his  collection  rather  than  in  the  remini- 
scences of  his  fellow-Evangelists.  But,  examining  Luke's  expression 
carefully,  we  find  it  is  more  general  than  it  appeared  at  first  sight. 
His  reference  is  fully  satisfied  if  we  take  him  to  mean  '  a  day  of 
unleavened  bread,'  '  the  time  of  the  Passover  sacrifice.' 

This  difficulty  has  been  elaborately  discussed  by  many  Bible 
writers,  but  it  will  be  of  practical  service  to  our  readers  if  we  take 
out  the  chief  matters  of  fact  and  of  argument,  and  present  them  as 
clearly  and  briefly  as  possible. 

Dean  Mansel  carefully  explains  what  may  be  meant  by  '  the  first 
(day)  of  unleavened  bread ' :  '  Legally,  the  first  day  of  unleavened 
bread  was  the  fifteenth  day  of  Nisan  or  Abib,  commencing  on  the 
evening  of  the  fourteenth  day,  after  the  Paschal  lamb  was  eaten ;  and 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  lasted  seven  days,  till  the  evening  of 
the  twenty-first  day  of  the  month.  Josephus  speaks  of  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread  as  beginning  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month, 
the  legal  day  commencing  after  sunset.  But  the  day  meant  in  Matt. 

13—2 


196      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

xxvi.  17  is  clearly  the  fourteenth,  being  that  on  which  the  Passover 
was  slain  (Mark  xiv.  12  ;  Luke  xxii.  7),  which  is  also  spoken  of  by 
Josephus  in  another  place  as  the  beginning  of  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread.  On  this  day  it  was  usual,  though  not  necessary,  to  abstain 
from  leaven  ;  and  by  including  it,  the  feast  was  sometimes  reckoned 
as  lasting  eight  days.  A  question  may  arise  respecting  the  part  of 
the  day  to  which  the  Evangelist's  words  refer.  If  to  the  legal  begin- 
ning— i.e.,  to  the  evening  following  the  sunset  of  the  thirteenth — it  is 
possible  that  the  preparation  might  be  made,  and  the  Passover  eaten 
by  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  a  day  earlier  than  the  usual  time. 
And  this  is,  perhaps,  the  most  natural  mode  of  reconciling  the 
account  of  the  Synoptists  with  that  of  St.  John.'  '  According  to  the 
Mishna,  it  was  customary  in  Judaea  to  work  till  noon  on  the  day  pre- 
ceding the  Passover — i.e.,  Nisan  14 — whereas  in  Galilee  no  work  at 
all  was  done  on  that  day,  though  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel 
differed  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  work  on  the  preceding  evening.  If 
this  statement  represents  the  practice  in  our  Saviour's  time,  it  would 
be  natural  for  the  disciples,  who  were  Galilaeans,  even  if  they  took 
the  more  liberal  view  as  regards  the  evening,  to  commence  their  pre- 
paration immediately  after  sunset  on  the  thirteenth — i.e.,  at  the  legal 
commencement  of  the  fourteenth — though  the  Jews  of  Judaea  might 
postpone  their  task  till  the  following  morning.  The  disciples,  in 
asking  their  question,  may  have  had  a  view  to  a  Passover  to  be  eaten 
on  the  following  day,  though  our  Lord  Himself  gave  directions  for  its 
being  eaten  the  same  evening.' 

Dr.  E.  R.  Conder  argues  strongly  for  our  Lord's  observance  of  the 
Passover  on  the  usual  day,  Nisan  14,  and  endeavours  to  explain  how 
it  is  that  John  fixes  the  day  of  the  Crucifixion  as  Nisan  14,  the  day 
on  which  the  Paschal  lambs  were  sacrificed,  so  that  the  Last  Supper 
took  place  on  the  evening  of  Nisan  13.  His  arguments  do  not,  how 
ever,  appear  conclusive ;  and  the  difficulty  seems  to  us  to  be  insuper 
able,  that  if  the  priest-party  had  already  kept  their  Passover,  the) 
could  not  possibly  be  anxious  not  to  defile  themselves,  and  so  rendei 
themselves  unfitted  for  keeping  the  feast.  It  is  certainly  easier  tc 
think  of  our  Lord  as  adjusting  Himself  to  circumstances  He  fore 
knew  than  to  explain  away  the  very  distinct  references  made  by  th< 
Apostle  John. 

Carr  says :  '  The  events  of  the  Passover  are  full  of  difficulty  fo: 
the  harmonist.  It  is,  however,  almost  certain  that  the  "  Last  Supper ; 
was  not  the  Paschal  meal,  but  was  partaken  of  on  the  fourteenth— 
that  is,  after  sunset  on  Nisan  13.  It  is  quite  certain  from  Johr 
xviii.  28  that  Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  preparation,  and  althougl 


PRECISE  DATE  OF  THE  LAST  SUPPER.         197 

ic  Synoptic  narratives  seem  at  first  sight  to  disagree  with  this,  it  is 
robably  only  the  want  of  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  facts  that 
reates  the  apparent  discrepancy.' 

Edersheim  treats  almost  with  scorn  the  bare  idea  that  the  feast 
ept  by  our  Lord  could  be  any  other  than  the  ordinary  Paschal  feast, 
le  says :  *  St.  Luke's  account  of  what  actually  happened,  being  in 
ome  points  the  most  explicit,  requires  to  be  carefully  studied,  and 
hat  without  thought  of  any  possible  consequences  in  regard  to  the 
larmony  of  the  Gospels.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  imagine  any- 
hing  more  evident  than  that  he  wishes  us  to  understand  that  Jesus 
vas  about  to  celebrate  the  ordinary  Jewish  Paschal  supper.  "  And 
he  day  of  unleavened  bread  came,  on  which  the  Passover  must  be 
acrificed."  The  designation  is  exactly  that  of  the  commencement 
>f  the  Pascha,  which  was  Nisan  14,  and  the  description  that  of  the 
;laying  of  the  Paschal  lamb.  What  follows  is  in  exact  accordance 
vith  it :  "  And  He  sent  Peter  and  John,  saying,  Go  and  make  ready 
or  us  the  Pascha,  that  we  may  eat  it."  Then  occur  these  three 
lotices  in  the  same  account :  "  And  .  .  .  they  made  ready  the 
Pascha  " ;  "  and  when  the  hour  was  come,  He  reclined  "  (as  usual  at 
he  Paschal  supper),  "and  the  Apostles  with  Him";  and  finally, 
:hese  words  of  His  :  "  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  Pascha 
vith  you."  And  with  this  fully  agrees  the  language  of  the  other  two 
synoptists,  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  17-20  ;  St.  Mark  xiv.  12-17.  No  ingenuity 
:an  explain  away  these  facts.  The  suggestion  that  in  that  year  the 
Sanhedrin  had  postponed  the  Paschal  supper  from  Thursday  evening 
'Nisan  14-15)  to  Friday  evening  (Nisan  15-16),  so  as  to  avoid  the 
Sabbath  following  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  and  that  the  Paschal 
amb  was  therefore  in  that  year  eaten  on  Friday,  the  evening  of  the 
day  on  which  Jesus  was  crucified,  is  an  assumption  void  of  all 
support  in  history  or  Jewish  tradition.  Equally  untenable  is  it  that 
Christ  had  held  the  Paschal  supper  a  day  in  advance  of  that  observed 
by  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  world — a  supposition  not  only  inconsistent 
with  the  plain  language  of  the  Synoptists,  but  impossible,  since  the 
Paschal  lamb  could  not  have  been  offered  in  the  Temple,  and,  there- 
fore, no  Paschal  supper  held,  out  of  the  regular  time.' 

The  subject  is  too  controversial  for  further  consideration  here.  It 
is  certainly  not  possible  to  reconcile  the  references  made  in  the  four 
Gospels  without  some  accommodation,  and  it  seems  to  be  St.  Luke's 
Gospel  that  really  occasions  the  difficulty.  The  most  hopeful  plan 
is  to  follow  the  lead  of  St.  John,  and  then  read  the  two  earlier  Evan- 
gelists in  the  light  of  St.  John's  references,  subjecting  St.  Luke  to  the 
necessary  accommodation,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  St.  Luke's  materials 


198      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

were  wholly  documentary  and  traditional.  If  there  is  lack  of  pre- 
cision in  the  details  of  such  a  matter,  we  should  naturally  expect  to 
find  it  in  the  Gospel  that  was  prepared  for  the  use  of  Gentiles, 
rather  than  of  Jews,  and  by  one  whom  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
was  a  born  Jew. 

The  History  of  Crucifixion. 

MATTHEW  xxvii.  35  :  '  And  they  crucified  Him.' 

Difficulty. — It  seems  strange  that  the  Jewish  rulers  should  have 
chosen  for  Jesus  a  distinctly  foreign  method  of  execution. 

Explanation. — Crucifixion  was  certainly  a  foreign  invention,  and 
it  was  never  naturalized  among  the  Jews.  There  are  traces  of  its 
infliction  by  the  Persians,  Assyrians,  Egyptians,  Carthaginians, 
Indians,  Scythians,  Greeks,  and  Macedonians.  Among  the  Romans 
it  prevailed  from  very  early  times  down  to  the  reign  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  by  whom  it  was  abolished.  Crucifixion  should  be  distinguished 
from  gibbeting,  which  was  an  exposure  of  the  body  after  death. 

Edersheim  thinks  that  crucifixion  was  of  Phoenician  origin,  although 
Rome  adopted  and  improved  on  it.  '  Crucifixion  was  not  a  Jewish 
mode  of  punishment,  although  the  King  Jannaeus  had  so  far  forgotten 
the  claims  of  both  humanity  and  religion  as  on  one  occasion  to 
crucify  not  less  than  eight  hundred  persons  in  Jerusalem  itself.  But 
even  Herod  the  Great,  with  all  his  cruelty,  did  not  resort  to  this 
mode  of  execution.  It  seems  especially  to  characterise  the  domination 
of  Rome  in  Judaea  under  every  governor.'  This  is  to  be  particularly 
noticed.  It  was  the  fate  reserved  for  rebels  against  the  Roman  rule, 
and  though  Pilate  repudiated  the  idea  of  Jesus  being  a  rebel,  he 
condemned  Him  as  such,  and  He  was  therefore  executed  in  the 
manner  that  such  a  rebel  would  be.  The  Jewish  modes  of  execution 
were  strangulation,  beheading,  burning,  and  stoning. 

The  Jewish  enemies  of  our  Lord  were  actuated  by  very  mixed 
motives  in  desiring  that  Christ  should  be  crucified,  but  their  chief 
purpose  was  to  relieve  themselves  from  the  responsibility  of  His 
death  in  the  view  of  the  people.  They  could  always  say  :  '  We  did 
not  put  Him  to  death  ;  the  Roman  governor  executed  Him.  See,  He 
did  not  die  in  any  of  our  Jewish  methods.'  And  they  were  also  quite 
willing  to  take  advantage  of  the  common  sentiment  concerning  cruci 
fixion,  which  was  regarded  as  not  only  the  most  dreadful  of  deaths, 
but  also  the  most  disgraceful ;  a  kind  of  death  reserved  for  slaves, 
and  the  vilest  criminals.  Christ's  enemies  were  glad  thus  to  put  up 
to  public  shame  the  claims  of  the  Nazarene  impostor,  as  they  re- 


THE  HISTOR  Y  OF  CRUCIFIXION.  199 

garded  Him;  and  the  exhibition  of  suffering  helplessness  on  the 
cross  they  thought  would  settle  for  ever  the  pretensions  of  the  new 
Messiah. 

The  sentiment  concerning  crucifixion,  of  which  the  enemies  of 
Christ  took  ready  advantage,  is  illustrated  in  the  oldest  pictorial 
representations  that  are  extant.  There  is  a  picture  of  the  Crucifixion 
in  a  Syrian  Evangelarium,  of  the  date  A.D.  586,  in  the  Laurentian 
Library  at  Florence.  The  treatment  of  the  subject  is  exceedingly 
rude,  bordering  on  the  grotesque.  The  figure  of  our  Lord  is  crowned 
with  a  nimbus,  and  clothed  with  a  long  purple  robe.  The  soldiers 
on  the  ground  are  casting  lots  for  His  garments,  and  the  sun  and 
moon  look  down  on  the  scene. 

A  few  years  since  a  drawing  representing  the  Crucified  was  found 
upon  the  walls  of  the  ancient  palace  of  the  Caesars  at  Rome.  Some 
heathen  servant  of  the  emperor  is  taunting  his  Christian  fellow- 
servant  with  this  contemptuous  sign.  The  relic  belongs  to  about  the 
year  A.D.  200,  and  is  by  far  the  most  ancient  crucifix  we  know  of. 
But  this,  the  oldest  known  crucifix,  is  an  ironical  one.  It  is  a  cari- 
cature of  Christ,  before  which  a  Christian  stands  worshipping,  and  it 
bears  the  inscription  :  '  Alexamenos,'  the  name  of  the  derided 
Christian,  '  worshipping  his  God.' 

The  infamy  of  crucifixion  is  still  preserved  in  the  reproachful  name 
Talui,  in  which  the  Talmud  speaks  of  Jesus ;  and  also  '  Worshippers 
of  the  Hung,'  which  they  apply  to  Christians,  though,  according  to 
their  fable,  He  was  first  stoned,  and  then  hung  on  a  tree. 

Geikie's  note  contains  some  points  of  additional  interest,  and  helps 
to  explain  the  adoption  of  this  method  of  execution  in  the  case  of 
Jesus.  '  Death  by  the  cross  was  the  most  terrible  and  the  most 
dreaded  and  shameful  punishment  of  antiquity — a  punishment,  the 
very  name  of  which,  Cicero  tells  us,  should  never  come  near  the 
thoughts,  the  eyes,  or  ears,  of  a  Roman  citizen,  far  less  his  person. 
It  was  of  Eastern  origin,  and  had  been  in  use  among  the  Persians 
and  Carthaginians  long  before  its  employment  in  Western  countries. 
Alexander  the  Great  adopted  it  in  Palestine,  from  the  Phoenicians, 
after  the  defence  of  Tyre,  which  he  punished  by  crucifying  two 
thousand  citizens,  after  the  place  had  surrendered.  Crassus  signalized 
its  introduction  into  Roman  use  by  lining  the  road  from  Capua  to 
Rome  with  crucified  slaves,  captured  in  the  revolt  of  Spartacus,  and 
Augustus  finally  inaugurated  its  general  use  by  crucifying  six  thou- 
sand slaves  at  once,  in  Sicily,  in  his  suppression  of  the  war  raised  by 
Sextus  Pompeius.' 

'  It  was  not  a  Jewish  punishment,  for  the  cases  mentioned  in  the 


200      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Old  Testament  of  "  hanging  up  "  criminals  or  offenders  refer  only  to 
their  dead  bodies,  or  were  imitations  of  the  heathen  custom  by  some 
of  the  kings.  For  Jews  to  crucify  a  Jew,  indeed,  would  have  been 
impossible,  as  the  national  sentiment  would  have  revolted  from  it. 
The  cruelty  of  heathenism  had  to  be  called  in  by  the  corrupt  and 
sunken  priesthood,  before  such  a  death  could  be  inflicted  on  any 
member  of  the  nation,  far  less  on  one  declared  by  the  Procurator 
himself  to  be  innocent.  It  was  the  punishment  inflicted  by  heathenism 
— which  knew  no  compassion  or  reverence  for  man  as  man — on  the 
worst  criminals,  on  highway  robbers,  rebels,  and  slaves,  or  on  pro- 
vincials, who,  in  the  eye  of  Rome,  were  only  slaves,  if  they  fell  into 
crime.' 

By  some  writers  the  demand  to  crucify  Jesus,  as  made  by  Jewish 
priests,  by  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin,  and,  under  their  leading,  by  the 
Jewish  mob,  is  taken  as  indicating  the  state  of  wild  and  unreasoning 
excitement  into  which  they  had  worked  themselves,  through  fear  that 
they  would  not  be  able  to  overcome  the  scruples  of  Pilate.  'The 
cry,  "  Crucify  Him !"  twice  repeated  deliberately  and  fiercely,  shows 
more  than  common  fury.  This  terrible  word  shows  how  thoroughly 
the  evil  passions  of  the  people  were  excited.  The  death  which  the 
people  deliberately  chose  for  their  King  was  that  of  a  slave,  of  a 
criminal  handed  over  to  their  secular  and  detested  rulers.' 

In  the  estimate  of  motives  a  place  should  also  be  given  to  another 
view,  which  we  have  not  found  elsewhere  noticed.  As  the  feast  was 
so  closely  approaching,  the  priest-party  would  have  been  in  extreme 
difficulty  if  Pilate  had  handed  Jesus  back  to  them  to  be  executed  in 
a  Jewish  mode.  They  must  have  kept  Jesus  over  the  feast,  and  that 
involved  two  perils — excitement  would  have  died  down,  and  public 
opinion  in  His  favour  would  be  aroused.  The  Romans  might  do 
what  they  could  not  do,  lest  they  should  defile  themselves,  and  unfit 
themselves  for  the  feast.  So  the  Romans  executed  Jesus. 


Chronology  in  Stephen's  Speech. 

ACTS  vii.  6  :  '  And  God  spake  on  this  wise,  that  His  seed  should  sojourn  in  a 
strange  land  ;  and  that  they  should  bring  them  into  bondage,  and  entreat  them  evil 
four  hundred  years.' 

Difficulty. — This  lfour  hundred  years '  cannot  be  verified  by  the 
early  records  on  any  chronological  system. 

Explanation. — It  is  unreasonable  to  look  for  historical  or 
chronological  precision  in  a  prisoner's  defence,  uttered  on  sudden 
impulse  under  great  excitement,  and  without  any  possibility  of 


CHRONOLOGY  IN  STEPHEN'S  SPEECH.         201 

verifying  any  statements  that  might  be  made  under  the  pressure  of 
passing  emotion.  None  of  us,  under  such  circumstances,  could 
ensure  the  correctness  of  our  memory  of  historical  details ;  and 
especially  of  details  which  we  only  wanted  to  use  in  a  general  way 
for  purposes  of  illustration.  So  far  as  Stephen's  purpose  in  his 
defence  is  concerned,  it  does  not  matter  whether  the  number  '  four 
hundred '  is  exact  or  not,  because  he  only  uses  it  casually,  and  as 
equivalent  to  '  a  long  period.' 

The  note  given  in  the  *  Speaker's  Commentary '  puts  clearly  and 
succinctly  all  that  need  be  said  on  a  subject  which  has  caused  much 
discussion :  *  This  verse  6  and  the  following  verse  are  quoted,  not 
with  verbal  exactness,  from  Gen.  xv.  13,  14,  according  to  the  LXX. 
A  parenthesis  marked  after  the  words  land  and  evil  would  make  it 
clear  that  the  four  hundred  years  are  the  length  of  the  entire  time 
throughout  which  Abraham  and  his  descendants  were  to  be  sojourners 
— that  is,  to  have  no  country  which  they  could  call  their  own.  The 
Egyptian  servitude  did  not  begin  until  after  the  death  of  Joseph, 
and  did  not  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years.  If  the  calcula- 
tion is  made  from  the  weaning  of  Isaac,  the  interval  is  exactly  four 
hundred  years.  In  speaking,  the  round  number  of  the  prediction 
was  used  instead  of  the  precise  total  of  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  which  is  given  in  the  historical  statement,  Exod.  xii.  40,  quoted 
Gal.  iii.  17,  which  the  received  chronology  makes  to  be  the  interval 
between  Abraham's  going  down  into  Egypt  and  the  Exodus.  The 
same  variation  is  found  in  Josephus,  who  states,  II.  xv.  2,  that  the 
Israelites  quitted  Egypt  in  the  four  hundred  and  thirtieth  year ;  but 
in  II.  ix.  i,  and  in  a  report  of  a  speech  of  his  own,  J.  W.,  V.  ix.  4, 
gives  four  hundred  years  as  the  length  of  their  stay  in  Egypt. 
Between  Jacob's  going  down  into  Egypt  and  the  Exodus,  Josephus 
reckoned  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  II.  xv.  2.  Isaac  was  born 
twenty-five  years  after  Abraham's  arrival  in  Canaan,  was  sixty  years 
old  at  the  birth  of  his  twin  sons,  and  Jacob  was  one  hundred  and 
thirty  when  he  went  down  into' Egypt,  25  +  60  +  130  =  215.  Again, 
from  Jacob's  going  down  into  Egypt  until  the  death  of  Joseph  was 
an  interval  of  seventy-one  years;  thence  till  the  birth  of  Moses 
sixty-four  years ;  and  thence  again  till  the  Exodus  eighty  years, 
71+64  +  80  =  215. 

It  should  be  noticed  that,  as  a  quotation,  Stephen's  sentence  is 
precisely  correct.  Quoting  a  passage  does  not  necessarily  involve 
even  a  belief  in  its  correctness.  Gen.  xv.  13  reads  :  'And  they  shall 
afflict  them  four  hundred  years.' 


202      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


The  History  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

MATTHEW  xxvi.  3  :  '  Then  assembled  together  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes 
and  the  elders  of  the  people,  unto  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  who  was  called 
Caiaphas.' 

Question. — Does  the  history  of  the  Sanhedrin  enable  us  to  decide 
the  measure  of  authority  and  influence  it  had,  and  its  composition,  in 
the  time  of  Christ  ? 

Answer. — There  seems  to  be  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  Sanhedrin,  Wieseler  arguing  that  it  was  a  Roman  institution. 
Edersheim  traces  the  Sanhedrin  back  to  the  time  of  Hyrcanus,  and 
finds  its  origin  in  the  '  eldership,'  which,  under  the  earlier  Maccabees, 
was  called  '  the  tribunal  of  the  Asmonaeans.'  He  thinks  its  power 
varied  according  to  surrounding  political  conditions,  and  that,  though 
at  times  absolute,  it  was  usually  shorn  of  all  but  ecclesiastical 
authority.  The  Jews  find  its  origin  in  the  appointment  of  the  seventy 
elders  by  Moses  (Num.  xi.  16,  17,  24,  25).  But  that  appointment 
seems  to  have  borne  a  strictly  local  and  temporary  character.  No 
further  notice  of  such  a  body  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
earliest  mention  of  a  council  at  all  like  the  Sanhedrin  is  found  in  the 
Apocrypha  (see  II.  Mace.  i.  10  ;  iv.  44;  xi.  27).  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  it  was  constituted  after  the  return  from  Babylon  ;  and 
the  name,  Sanhedrin,  is  of  Greek  derivation,  implying  'a  body  of 
assessors.'  In  the  Mishna  it  is  called  Beth-din,  or  'house  of 
judgment.' 

Dr.  Edmond  Stapfer  summarises  the  information  that  is  at  com- 
mand :  '  In  the  first  century,  the  administration  of  public  affairs  and 
of  justice  was  divided  between  the  procurators  and  tetrarchs  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  local  authorities  on  the  other.  It  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  fix  the  limits  of  their  respective  functions.  Subject  to  the 
supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  procurators,  however,  the  Sanhedrin  of 
Jerusalem  was  occupied  almost  exclusively  with  religious  questions 
and  internal  affairs.  This  Sanhedrin  was  a  permanent  assembly,  a 
senate,  having  its  seat  at  Jerusalem.  Its  powers  had  been  very 
extensive  under  the  Maccabees.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  Jewish 
tradition  traced  back  its  institution  to  Moses,  and  held  that  it  was 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  law ;  but  it  is  equally  needless  to  say  that 
there  was  nothing  in  common  between  the  Sanhedrin  and  the  men 
of  whom  Moses  speaks,  who  were  chosen  as  representatives  of  the 
people.  Nor  is  there  any  connection  between  this  assembly  and  that 
subsequently  formed.  Even  under  Ezra,  the  Sanhedrin  had  as  yet 
no  existence.  Ezra  created  what  is  called  "  the  Great  Synagogue," 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  SANHEDRIN.  203 

an  improper  term,  which  confounds  that  institution  with  the 
Synagogues  properly  so-called.  It  should  rather  be  "the  Great 
Assembly."  This  lasted  until  the  year  300  B.C.  It  was  a  college  of 
scribes  to  settle  questions  of  theology.  The  Sanhedrin,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  a  governing  body.  We  find  the  first  traces  of  its  existence 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (223-187  B.C.).  Josephus  speaks  indeed 
of  a  gerousia,  or  senate^  which  was  then  acting.  It  is  possible,  there- 
fore, that  the  Ptolemies  may  have  permitted  the  Jews  to  form  a 
Sanhedrin,  in  order  to  gain  their  affection  by  permitting  them  the 
semblance  of  self-government.  But  the  power  of  this  assembly  must 
have  been  very  limited  under  their  administration  and  that  of  the 
Seleucidae.  It  is  evident  that  only  under  the  Asmonaeans  can  this 
gerousia  have  become  powerful.  From  162  to  130  B.C.  we  find  no 
mention  of  its  existence.  Everything  indicates  that  it  was  Hyrcanus 
who,  in  130  B.C.,  organised,  or  re-organised,  the  Sanhedrin.  He 
made  it  a  sort  of  national  representation  ;  before  this  time  the  power 
belonged  almost  exclusively  to  the  high  priest.  The  Romans,  when 
they  took  possession  of  Palestine  (63  B.C.),  allowed  the  Sanhedrin  to 
remain,  but  curtailed  its  powers. 

'The  Sanhedrin  had  an  official  existence  in  the  first  century  under 
the  Herods  and  the  procurators.  It  met  and  deliberated,  and  had  a 
semblance  of  authority.  It  had  seventy-one  members.  This  figure 
is  given  us  in  the  Mishna.  It  is  borrowed  from  the  law,  and  can 
scarcely  be  disputed.  Josephus  confirms  it  when  he  says  that  he 
established  in  Galilee  a  council  of  seventy  elders,  after  the  pattern  of 
that  in  Jerusalem.  The  president  was  the  seventy-first. 

'  The  New  Testament  distinguishes,  in  this  assembly,  between  the 
"High  priests,"  the  "Elders,"  and  the  "Scribes."  The  Mishna 
also  gives  us  a  similar  division :  "  The  Sanhedrin  is  composed,"  it 
says,  "  of  priests,  Levites,  and  Israelites  whose  daughters  are  per- 
mitted to  marry  the  priests."  By  this  last  expression  it  means 
Israelites  who,  by  producing  their  genealogical  tables,  could  prove 
the  purity  of  their  Jewish  origin.  Such  members  were  found  in  all 
classes  of  society.  The  majority  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  Sadducees. 
All  the  priests,  among  others,  were  Sadducees,  and  it  was  a  rare  thing 
in  the  first  century  to  find  a  priest  who  was  a  Pharisee. 

*  The  functions  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  very  numerous.  It  passed 
the  laws,  and  was  therefore  a  legislative  body.  It  executed  justice, 
and  possessed  the  most  extensive  judicial  powers.  Before  its  tribunal 
false  prophets  were  arraigned.  It  dealt  with  questions  of  doctrine, 
and  when  occasion  arose  could  exercise  the  functions  of  a  council. 
It  was,  moreover,  charged  with  certain  details  of  great  importance  at 


204      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

this  period.  It  watched  over  the  priestly  families,  and  controlled  the 
marriages  made  in  them.  It  kept  in  its  archives  the  genealogical 
tables  of  the  principal  priests'  families.  It  authorised  wars,  fixed  the 
limits  of  towns,  and  alone  had  the  power  of  modifying  their  precincts 
and  those  of  the  Temple.  It  settled  the  calendar  and  the  new 
moons  ;  this  duty  devolved  on  the  president  and  three  members.  In 
brief,  it  was  at  once  parliament  and  council.' 

Stapfer  points  out  that  the  right  of  capital  punishment  was  not 
really  taken  away  from  the  Sanhedrin ;  the  Sanhedrin  itself  re- 
nounced it.  '  The  Romans  did  not  precisely  take  it  away  ;  but,  for 
very  weakness,  the  Sanhedrin  dared  no  longer  condemn  and  execute 
the  brigands,  Sicarii,  and  fanatic  zealots,  the  more  as  their  attempts 
had  often  a  religious  and  patriotic  intent.  The  people  might  have 
accused  it  of  striking  down  patriots  whose  sole  crime  was  that  they 
sought  to  deliver  their  country. '  '  The  Sanhedrin  did  not  dare  take 
upon  itself  alone  the  responsibility  of  our  Lord's  execution,  for  they 
knew  that  Jesus  had  been  at  one  time  very  popular.  They  therefore 
begged  Pilate  to  support  them.  The  saying,  "It  is  not  lawful  for 
us  to  put  anyone  to  death,"  was  not  so  much  the  expression  of  a 
truth  as  a  flattery  of  the  governor.'  They  did,  subsequently,  put 
Stephen  to  death.  Two  passages  in  the  Talmud  prove  that  the  San- 
hedrin retained  the  power  of  life  and  death  subsequent  to  the  time 
of  Christ. 

The  Herodians. 

MARK  iii.  6  :  '  And  the  Pharisees  went  forth,  and  straightway  took  counsel  with 
the  Herodians  against  Him,  how  they  might  destroy  Him.' 

Question. — Can  we  discover  any  reason  for  the  special  enmity 
shown  by  this  party  to  Christ  ? 

Answer. — Two  explanations  of  the  position  and  relations  of  the 
Herodians  have  been  given.  Following  a  conjecture  of  Origen's, 
some  say  that,  as  supporters  of  the  family  of  Herod,  who  held  their 
dominions  by  the  grant  of  the  Roman  Emperor,  they  would  be  in 
favour  of  paying  tribute  to  the  supreme  power.  Others  think  they 
were  an  intensely  patriotic  party,  who  were  supporters  of  the  Herodian 
family  as  the  last  hope  of  retaining  for  the  Jews  a  fragment  of  national 
government  as  distinguished  from  absolute  dependence  upon  Rome, 
as  a  province  of  the  empire.  This  view  is  advanced  by  Grotius,  and 
supported  by  Meyer  and  Ewald.  According  to  this  view,  the  Phari- 
sees and  Herodians,  however  differing  in  other  respects,  were  united 
in  antagonism  to  the  absolute  dominion  of  Rome. 


THE  HERODIANS.  205 

Little  or  nothing  is  known  of  this  party  save  through  the  references 
in  the  Gospels.  They  could  not  have  been  rigid  observers  of  the 
Mosaic  ordinances,  but  inclined  to  approve  of  that  approximation  of 
Judaism  to  heathen  civilisation,  of  which  the  Herodian  family  were 
the  chief  representatives.  *  Their  leaven,  or  influence,  though  rather 
political  than  religious,  would  in  its  tendency  coincide  with  that  of 
the  Sadducees,  the  freethinkers  of  Judaism.' 

Edersheim  says  :  '  We  know  comparatively  little  of  the  deeper 
political  movements  in  Judaea,  only  so  much  as  it  has  suited  Jose- 
phus  to  record.  But  we  cannot  be  greatly  mistaken  in  regarding  the 
Herodians  as  a  party  which  honestly  accepted  the  house  of  Herod  as 
occupants  of  the  Jewish  throne.  Differing  from  the  extreme  section 
of  the  Pharisees,  who  hated  Herod,  and  from  the  '  Nationalists,'  it 
might  have  been  a  middle,  or  moderate  Jewish  party,  semi-Roman, 
and  semi-Nationalist.  We  know  that  it  was  the  ambition  of  Herod 
Antipas  again  to  unite  under  his  sway  the  whole  of  Palestine  ;  but  we 
know  not  what  intrigues  may  have  been  carried  on  for  that  purpose, 
alike  with  the  Pharisees  and  the  Romans.' 

Dr.  E.  Stapfer  says  the  Herodians  are  only  mentioned  three  times 
in  the  Gospels  (Matt.  xxii.  16  ;  Mark  iii.  6  ;  xii.  13).  '  Josephus  does 
not  mention  them.  They  were  probably  the  same  as  the  Boethusim, 
the  descendants  of  Boethus,  grandfather  of  Mariamne  Maccabeust 
third  wife  of  Herod,  and  were,  therefore,  members  of  his  family. 
They  were  Sadducees  by  their  origin,  since  Boethus  was  a  Sadducee. 
But  it  is  probable  that  the  majority  of  the  Sadducees  repudiated 
their  anti-patriotic  servility.  These  Herodians  seem  to  have  com- 
bined with  some  of  the  Pharisees  to  ensnare  Jesus.' 


The  Two  Apostles  named  *  James/ 

ACTS  xii.  2  :  *  And  he  killed  James,  the  brother  of  John,  with  the  sword.' 
ACTS  xv.  13  :  '  And  after  they  had  held  their  peace,  James  answered.' 

Question. — Can  these  two  men  be  kept  distinct ',  and  how  are  they 
related  to  the  author  of  the  Epistle  ? 

Answer. — The  name  'James'  is  a  later  form  of  the  familiar 
Hebrew  name,  'Jacob,'  and  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  it 
frequently  occurring  among  any  body  of  Hebrew  men.  There  was 
constant  repetition  of  the  family  name,  or  Christian  name,  as  we 
should  call  it,  and  men  were  distinguished  from  one  another  by  having 
their  names  associated  with  their  fathers'  names.  They  might  be 
James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  or  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus.  The 
father's  name  became,  in  fact,  a  «>-name. 


206      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

In  the  New  Testament  there  are  seven  references  to  persons 
named  James,  which  may  possibly  refer  to  distinct  individuals,  (i) 
James,  the  son  of  Zebedee.  (2)  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  or 
.Cleopas.  (3)  James,  the  Lord's  brother.  (4)  James,  the  son  of 
Mary.  (5)  James  the  'Less,'  or  the  'Little.'  (6)  James,  the 
brother  of  Jude.  (7)  James,  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 

These  may  be  seven  persons,  but  a  little  examination  will  suffice 
to  show  that  they  may  represent  only  two  persons.  What  is  quite 
clear  is,  that  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  is  distinct  from  James,  the 
son  of  Alphaeus,  seeing  that  both  these  men  were  members  of  the 
Apostolic  company.  From  the  list  of  men  called  James  we  can  at  once 
and  clearly  eliminate  the  son  of  Zebedee,  because  his  individuality 
stands  out  prominently,  and  because  he  was  martyred  by  Herod  long 
before  the  Epistle  which  goes  by  the  name  of  James  could  possibly 
have  been  written  (A.D.  44). 

The  identification  of  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  and  his  relation  to 
the  Epistle,  are  the  great  difficulties.  In  the  list  of  names  above  given, 
James,  the  son  of  Mary,  is  the  same  as  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus, 
if  Mary  was  the  wife  of  Alphaeus.  If  this  Mary  was  a  sister  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  then  James  would  be  the  '  Lord's  brother,'  or  near 
kinsman,  in  which  sense  the  word  *  brother  '  seems  to  be  used.  The 
same  man  might  be  the  actual  brother  of  Jude.  He  might  be  known 
by  a  sort  of  nickname,  '  the  Less/  because  of  his  under  size.  And 
he  might  be  recognised  by  his  official  position  as  '  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem.' 

'  By  comparing  St.  Paul's  description  concerning  numbers  4  and  7 
(above)  in  Gal.  i.  19  ;  and  ii.  9-12,  it  is  thought  he  must  be  referring 
to  one  and  the  same  man  ;  let  that  be  granted,  therefore,  to  begin 
with.  We  may  identify  numbers  3  and  4  by  the  knowledge  that 
James,  the  son  of  Mary,  had  a  brother  called  Joses  (Matt,  xxvii.  56), 
and  so  also  had  James  "  the  Lord's  brother  "  (Matt.  xiii.  55)  •  and 
further  we  may  consider  numbers  3  and  6  identical,  because  each 
was  brother  to  Jude  (Mark  vi.  3  ;  Jude,  verse  i) ;  James  the  Little, 
number  5,  is  clearly  the  same  as  the  son  of  Mary,  number  4.  (Comp. 
Matt,  xxvii.  56;  Mark  xv.  40;  Luke  xxiv.  10.)  These  might,  it  is 
true,  be  coincidences  merely,  and,  when  we  remember  the  frequency 
of  Hebrew  names,  seem  insufficient  for  more  than  hypothesis.  Thus 
far,  then,  numbers  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7  are  thought  to  be  one  and  the 
same  person — the  Apostle  James,  and  he  the  Lord's  brother.'  There 
does  not  seem  an  insuperable  difficulty  in  identifying  him  with  James, 
the  son  of  Alphaeus,  seeing  that  he  cannot  be  James,  the  son  of 
Zebedee. 


THE  TWO  APOSTLES  NAMED  'JAMES?         207 

A  sketch  of  the  career  of  these  two  men  will  best  distinguish 
them.  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  was,  with  his  younger  brother 
John,  engaged  in  the  fishing  trade,  and  they  probably  belonged  to 
Bethsaida,  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee.  Both  brothers  were  disciples  of 
John  the  Baptist,  and  were,  by  him,  pointed  to  Jesus.  James  was 
called,  with  his  brother,  to  a  personal  attendance  on  Christ  during 
our  Lord's  Galilean  ministry.  (Matt.  iv.  21,  22  ;  Mark  i.  19,  20; 
Luke  v.  i-n.)  Subsequently  he  was  named  one  of  the  Apostles, 
and  took  rank  among  the  leaders,  being  placed  in  the  first  group. 
The  name  Christ  found  for  James  and  his  brother,  'Sons  of  Thunder,' 
suggests  an  impetuous  and  zealous  disposition,  and  this  we  may  think 
of  as  more  characteristic  of  the  elder  than  of  the  younger  brother. 
James,  with  his  brother  and  Peter,  was  favoured  by  being  permitted 
to  attend  our  Lord  on  His  raising  the  Ruler's  daughter,  at  the  Trans- 
figuration, and  in  Gethsemane.  We  can  only  suppose  that,  after  our 
Lord's  ascension,  he  shewed  unusual,  and  almost  excessive  zeal,  which 
gave  him  prominence  among  the  Christian  leaders,  and  made  him 
the  mark  for  Herod's  sword.  This  James  was  martyred  about  the 
time  of  the  Passover,  A.D.  44. 

The  other  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  was  not  a  fisherman.  There 
is  no  reference  to  his  call  in  the  New  Testament,  but  his  name  is 
given  in  each  list  of  the  Apostles,  and  he  was  favoured  by  the 
Saviour  with  a  separate  interview  soon  after  the  resurrection  (i  Cor. 
xv.  7).  He  was  afterwards  distinguished  as  one  of  the  Apostles  of 
the  circumcision ;  and  he  appears,  soon  after  the  death  of  Stephen, 
A.D.  34,  to  have  been  appointed  president,  or  bishop,  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem — to  have  resided  thenceforth  in  that  city — and  to  have 
presided  at  the  council  which  was  convened  there  A.D.  49.  He 
maintained  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neighbourbood  such  a  reputation  for 
sanctity  as  to  acquire,  even  among  his  unbelieving  countrymen,  the 
honourable  appellation  of  '  the  Just.'  But  the  high  opinion  that  was 
entertained  of  his  character  did  not  suffice  to  save  him  from  martyr- 
dom. According  to  an  account  which  we  receive  from  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  he  was  precipitated  from  an  eminence  or 
battlement  of  the  Temple,  standing  upon  which  he  had  avowed,  in 
the  presence  of  an  excited  multitude,  his  faith  in  Christ ;  and  this 
not  having  terminated  his  life,  he  was  afterwards  stoned,  and  at  last 
killed,  while,  kneeling  down,  he  prayed  God  to  forgive  his  murderers. 
This  event  occurred  A.D.  62. 

If  all  the  later  references  to  James  may  be  referred  to  James,  the 
son  of  Alphaeus,  we  can  have  little  doubt  that  he  was  the  author  of 
the  Epistle.  It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  impression  that  is  left 


208      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

on  us  by  the  historical  notices  we  have  of  him.  The  opening  words 
of  the  Epistle  do  not  help  us  :  and  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  Epistle  itself  only  became  recognised  in  the  third  century.  If  it 
was  not  written  by  this  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  the  author  cannot 
be  identified,  and  apostolic  authority  cannot  be  associated  with  it. 
The  Epistle  was  first  circulated  among  the  Eastern  churches  ;  in  the 
course  of  the  fourth  century  its  authority  was  more  and  more  widely 
acknowledged  ;  and  in  the  fifth  century  its  reception  by  the  churches 
of  both  the  East  and  the  West  became  universal. 


The  Lord's  Brethren. 

MARK  vi.  3  :  '  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  and  brother  of  James, 
and  Jose?,  and  Judas,  and  Simon  1  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us  ? 

Question. — Did  the  Jews  express  fannly  relationships  with  suffi- 
cient precision  to  warrant  us  in  thinking  our  Lord  had  younger  brothers 
and  sisters  ? 

Answer. — These  so-called  'brethren'  may  have  been  either 
children  of  Joseph's  before  he  married  Mary ;  children  of  Mary's, 
born  after  our  Lord ;  or  children  of  near  relatives  of  Mary,  or  of 
Joseph,  who  would  in  reality  be  '  cousins.'  This  third  explanation  is 
the  one  that  is  now  recognised  as  the  most  probable;  and  it  is 
thought  that  special  reference  is  intended  to  Cleopas  (or  Alphaeus), 
whose  wife  Mary  is  called  the  sister  of  the  Virgin  (see  John  xix.  25), 
and  whose  four  sons  were  named  James,  Joses,  Simon  (or  Symeon), 
and  Judas.  Early  tradition  makes  this  Cleopas  to  be  a  brother  of 
Joseph,  the  reputed  father  of  Jesus  ;  and  if  this  is  true  the  four  sons 
were  cousins  of  Jesus  both  on  the  father  and  on  the  mother's  side. 

It  is  pointed  out  that  '  the  term  "  brethren  "  is  frequently  used  in 
Scripture  of  other  near  relatives  :  of  Abram  and  Lot  (Gen.  xiv.  14), 
of  Jacob  and  Laban  (Gen.  xxix.  12-15),  of  the  cousins  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu  (Lev.  x.  4),  of  uncles  and  their  sons  (Lev.  xxv.  48,  49),  and 
probably  also  of  the  uncles  of  Jeconias  (see  on  Matt.  i.  u,  Spk. 
Com.).  So  also  Isaac  calls  Rebekah  his  sister  (Gen.  xxvi.  7),  pro- 
bably because  she  was  his  cousin ;  and  the  brethren  of  Ahaziah 
(2  Kings  x.  13)  are  called  the  "sons  of  his  brethren"  (2  Chron. 
xxii.  8),  and  probably  were  in  reality  his  cousins,  the  sons  of  the 
brethren  of  his  father  Jehoram,  mentioned  2  Chron.  xxi.  2,  4.' 

Dean  Plumptre  reviews  the  various  theories  and  arguments,  and 
says  :  '  On  the  whole,  then,  I  incline  to  rest  in  the  belief  that  the  so- 
called  "  brethren "  were  cousins  who,  through  some  unrecorded 


THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN.  209 

circumstances,    had   been   so   far   adopted    into   the   household   at 
Nazareth  as  to  be  known  by  the  term  of  nearer  relationship.' 

Rev.  E.  G.  Punchard,  M.A.,  in  '  Ellicott's  Commentary,'  gives  the 
different  theories  that  have  found  favour.  The  terms  *  brother '  and 
1  brethren '  meet  us  so  often  in  the  New  Testament,  as  applied  to 
Jesus  Christ,  that  we  can  hardly  pass  them  by.  Do  they  infer  the 
strict  and  actual  relationship,  or  one  merely  collateral  ? 

(1)  The  Uterine  or  Helvidian  Theory.     Held  by  the  advocates  of 
the  natural  sense,  that  these  men  were  the  younger  sons  of  Joseph 
and  Mary.     They  urge  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  adelphos^ 
i.e.,  brother,  and  deny  its  use  figuratively.     They  point,  moreover,  to 
Matt.  i.  25,  and  suppose  from  it  the  birth  of  other  children  in  the 
holy  family.     Those  who  shrink  from  such  a  view  are  charged  with 
sentiment,  as  impugners  of  marriage,  and  even  with  ideas  more  or 
less  Manichaean  concerning  the  impurity  of  matter.     The  German 
commentator  Bleek,  and   Dean  Alford  and  Dr.    Davidson   among 
ourselves,  contend  thus  for  the  actual  brotherhood,  maintaining  the 
theory  originally  propounded  by  Helvidius,  a  writer  of  the  fourth 
century,  answered  by  the  great  Augustine. 

(2)  The  Agnatic  or  Epiphanian  Theory.     A  second  class  of  divines 
are  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  Epiphanius,  who  was  Bishop 
of  Salamis,  in  Cyprus,  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  and  no 
mean  antagonist  of  the  Helvidians.     At  the  head  of  their  modern 
representatives,  yfov'/<?  princeps  for  scholarship  and  fairness,  is  Canon 
Lightfoot.     The  '  brethren  of  the  Lord  '  are  said  to  be  sons  of  Joseph 
by  a  former  wife,  i.t.t  before  his  espousal  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
are  rightly  termed  adelphoi  accordingly.     Far  from  being  of  the  number 
of  the  twelve,  they  were  believers  only  after  Christ's  resurrection. 
Thus,  then,  are  explained  such  texts  as  Matt.  xii.  46  :  Mark  iii.  31  ; 
Luke  viii.  19;  John  vii.  5.     By  this  supposition,  James,  the  'Lord's 
brother,'  must  be  a  distinct  person  from  '  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus.' 

(3)  The  Collateral  or  Hieronymian  Theory.     There  remains  one 
proposition  more,  known,  from  the  name  of  its  foremost  champion, 
Jerome,  as  the  Hieronymian  theory  ;  and  this,  on  the  whole,  presents 
fewest  difficulties  to  the  religious  mind.     The  sons  of  Alphaeus  (or 
Cleopas  ;  the  name  is  the  same  in  different  dialects)  were  the.  cousins 
of  our  Lord,  their  mother  and  his  being  sisters  ;  and  such  a  relation- 
ship would  entirely  justify  the  use  of  the  word  '  brethren.' 

Two  considerations  demand  notice.  If  Mary,  the  mother  of  our 
Lord,  had  other  children  of  her  own,  or  even  stepsons,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  our  Lord's  committing  her  to  the  care  of  John,  who 
was  no  near  relative,  if  a  relative  at  all. 

14 


210      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

And  if  a  difficulty  is  created  by  the  general  statement  that  '  our 
Lord's  brethren  did  not  believe  on  Him,'  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
general  statements  admit  of  individual  exceptions,  and,  in  this  case, 
James  may  be  the  exception. 

The  Two  Genealogies. 

MATTHEW  i.  I  :  '  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David, 
the  son  of  Abraham.' 

LUKE  iii.  22  :  '  And  Jesus  Himself,  when  He  began  to  teach,  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age,  being  the  son  (as  was  supposed)  of  Joseph.' 

Difficulty. — These  genealogies  differ  in  so  many  important  par- 
ticulars that  a  common  origin  for  them  does  not  seem  possible. 

Explanation. — It  is  admitted  by  all  competent  writers  that  the 
genealogies  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke  both  refer  to  Joseph,  and 
not  directly  to  Mary.  What  needs  explanation  is  (i)  how  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph  can  prove  the  Davidic  relationship  of  the  son 
of  Mary,  who  was  not  also  the  son  of  Joseph ;  and  (2)  how  the 
names  given  in  the  two  genealogies  come  to  differ  in  such  remarkable 
ways. 

To  the  first  question  two  answers  have  been  given  :  (i)  Genea- 
logies were  only  kept  in  the  male  line  ;  but  as  Jesus  was  the  adopted 
son  of  Joseph,  he  was  regarded  legally  as  his  heir,  and  so  took  his 
place  in  the  genealogical  list ;  (2)  Mary  may  have  been  the  daughter 
of  Jacob  (Matt.  i.  16),  and  therefore  cousin  to  Joseph;  and,  if  so, 
the  genealogy  which  concerned  him  must  equally  have  concerned 
her. 

It  should,  however,  be  known  that  Dean  Plumptre  clings  to  the 
idea  that  St.  Luke  gives  the  genealogy  of  Mary,  through  Heli  and 
Nathan,  the  son  of  David.  He  says  :  '  A  third,  and,  as  it  seems  to 
the  present  writer,  a  more  probable  view  is,  that  we  have  in  St.  Luke 
the  genealogy,  not  of  Joseph,  but  of  Mary,  the  words  "  being  (as  was 
supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph  "  being  a  parenthesis,  the  first  link  being 
Jesus  (the  heir,  and  in  that  sense,  son  of  Heli).  On  this  hypothesis, 
the  Virgin,  as  well  as  Joseph,  was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David  ; 
and  our  Lord  was  literally,  as  well  as  by  adoption,  "  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh "  (Rom.  i.  3)  ;  on  the  mother's  side 
through  the  line  of  Nathan,  on  the  reputed  father's  through  that  of 
Solomon.  This  view  has  at  least  the  merit  of  giving  a  sufficient 
reason  for  the  appearance  of  two  different  genealogies.' 

It  may  be  helpful  to  remind  our  readers  that  St.  Luke  preserves  a 
number  of  records  which  could  only  have  been  given  by  Mary,  and 
which  imply  that  St.  Luke  was  in  direct  communication  with  her. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES.  211 

In  that  case,  we  can  quite  understand  that  the  private  family  genea- 
logy was  placed  at  his  command.  Matthew  seems  to  have  had  access 
to  the  official  lists  that  were  kept  by  the  priests ;  and  if  the  families 
descending  from  David,  through  Nathan  and  through  Solomon,  at 
some  time  intermarried,  the  divergencies  in  the  names  at  some  points 
of  the  list  is  easily  explained. 

'  It  may  be  noted  that  genealogies,  such  as  those  given  by  St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  Luke,  were  common  in  almost  every  Jewish  family. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  compiled  after  the 
return  from  Babylon,  show  that  they  existed  then.  Josephus  tran- 
scribes his  own  pedigree,  from  the  time  of  the  Asmonaean,  or  Mac- 
cabean,  priest-rulers,  from  public  registers,  and  states  that,  not  in 
Judaea  only,  but  in  Alexandria  and  Babylon  and  other  cities,  wherever 
the  Jews  were  settled,  such  registers  were  kept  of  the  births  and  mar- 
riages of  all  belonging  to  the  priesthood ;  that  copies  were  sent  to 
Jerusalem ;  that  the  registers  went  back  for  2,000  years.  The 
members  of  the  house  of  David  were  hardly  likely  to  be  less  careful 
in  preserving  records  of  their  descent  than  those  of  the  house  of 
Aaron.  Hillel  the  scribe,  for  instance,  was  known  to  be  of  the 
lineage  of  David,  and  must  have  had  evidence  of  some  kind  to  prove 
it.  So,  at  a  later  time,  the  princes  of  the  Captivity,  who  ruled  over 
the  Jews  of  Babylonia,  claimed  their  allegiance  as  sons  of  David.' 
(Plumptre.} 

The  hypothesis  that  seems  to  have  gained  most  favour  is  that 
which  assumes  St.  Matthew  to  have  given  the  table  of  royal  succes- 
sion, or  heirship,  to  the  throne  of  David,  and  St.  Luke  to  have  given 
the  table  of  actual  descent.  '  If  this  hypothesis  be  carried  through 
the  tables,  we  must  suppose  that  the  royal  line  through  Solomon 
became  extinct  in  Jeconias,  when  the  right  of  succession  passed  to 
the  collateral  line  of  Nathan  in  Salathiel ;  and  again,  that  the  elder 
branch  of  Zorobabel's  posterity  became  extinct  in  Eleazar  or  in 
Jacob,  when  the  succession  passed  to  the  younger  branch  in  Matthan, 
or  in  Joseph  the  son  of  Heli.  This  view  is  maintained  in  part  by 
Grotius  and  Possinus,  and  recently  by  Dr.  Mill,  and  is  carried  out 
more  fully  by  Lord  Arthur  Hervey.  This  scheme  seems  in  itself  by 
far  the  most  natural  that  has  been  proposed,  and  is  supported  by  at 
least  two  remarkable  coincidences  with  the  Old  Testament — the 
childlessness  of  Jeconias  predicted  by  Jeremiah  (xxii.  30),  and  the 
mention  of  the  "  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan "  by  Zechariah 
(xii.  12)  in  a  manner  which  seems  to  indicate  the  then  principal 
branch  of  the  house  of  David.'  (Speaker's  Commentary.} 

From  a  pamphlet  which  passed  through  our  hands  some  years  ago 

14—2 


212      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

we  took  the  following  notes,  which  are  worthy  of  a  careful  considera- 
tion: 

'  The  Jews,  like  other  nations,  gave  more  than  one  name  to  each 
individual.  The  life  of  a  Jew  was  essentially  twofold ;  he  was  a 
member  of  a  civil  State,  and  he  was  at  the  same  time  a  member  of  a 
theocracy ;  his  life  was  both  political  and  religious.  This  distinction 
seems  to  have  been  preserved  in  the  giving  of  names.  Traces  of  the 
double  name  are  found  throughout  the  course  of  Scripture  history, 
and  may  be  found,  under  certain  modifications,  differing  in  different 
countries,  existing  to  the  present  day.  A  well-informed  writer  says, 
in  reference  to  the  naming  of  a  Jewish  child :  "  The  parents  must 
give  it  a  name,  that  it  may  be  mentioned  at  its  circumcision.  It 
must  be  a  Hebrew  name,  and,  generally,  one  adopted  in  the  family, 
or  that  of  a  celebrated  man.  This  is  a  sacred  name,  and  is  always 
made  use  of  in  connection  with  religion.  He  may  have  another  name, 
a  common  one,  by  giving  a  Gentile  turn  to  his  Hebrew  name,  or  by 
adopting  a  Gentile  name  altogether.  For  example,  his  Hebrew  name 
may  be  Moshe,  and  his  common  name  Moses  or  Philip.  Whenever 
he  is  named  in  the  synagogue,  or  elsewhere  connected  with  any 
religious  duty,  he  is  called  by  his  Hebrew  name,  but  in  all  other 
affairs  he  is  called  by  his  common  name." 

'  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  sacred  name  imposed  at  birth  would 
be  entered  in  a  different  list  to  the  common  name  by  which  a  man 
was  known  in  his  civil  relationships.  The  former  would  be  registered 
in  infancy  at  the  first  presentation  before  the  Lord  in  the  Temple, 
and  would  be  preserved  amongst  the  sacred  documents  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord.  The  latter,  entered  later  in  life  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  4),  or 
after  death,  would  be  preserved  amongst  the  records  of  the  State,  or, 
it  may  be,  would  be  entered  into  a  private  family  pedigree.  Bishop 
Hervey,  in  his  work  on  the  "  Genealogy  of  our  Lord,"  adduces  his- 
torical evidence  to  show  that  both  public  and  private  registers  were 
kept  among  the  Jews. 

'  The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  brought  is,  that  we  have  before 
us  (in  Matt.  i.  and  Luke  iii.)  two  such  registers,  one  drawn  from 
public,  and  the  other  from  private  sources,  or  one  from  a  civil  genea- 
logy, the  other  from  writings  laid  up  in  the  Temple. 

*  In  support  of  this  view,  we  may  note  that  in  the  genealogy  of 
St.  Luke — the  Evangelist  whose  opening  chapters  show  a  close 
familiarity  with  the  interior  of  the  Temple,  and  what  took  place  there 
— the  names  appear  to  have  a  sacred  character.  Even  an  English 
reader  may  remark  at  a  glance  the  different  aspect  of  the  two  lists. 
That  in  Luke  contains,  with  striking  frequency,  the  familiar  names  of 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES. 


213 


distinguished  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  priests,  and  thus  confirms  the 
impression  that  his  genealogy,  rather  than  that  of  Matthew,  is  of  a 
purely  religious  character. 

'  This  hypothesis  receives  a  remarkable  confirmation  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  dates  of  the  two  lists  with  the  dates  of  the  first  build- 
ing, the  destruction,  and  the  second  building  of  the  Temple.  What, 
then,  is  the  relation  between  the  two  genealogies  before  Solomon's 
time,  when  there  was  no  Temple  ?  And  during  the  lives  of  Salathiel 
and  Zorobabel,  who  flourished  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity, when  again,  for  seventy  years,  there  was  no  Temple  ?  It  is 
precisely  at  these  periods  that  only  one  list  exists.  The  divergence 
in  Luke's  genealogy  from  that  of  Matthew  is  exactly  coincident  with 
the  periods  during  which  the  Temple  was  standing.  What  explana- 
tion of  this  striking  fact  can  be  more  natural  than  that,  at  the  point 
where  the  two  genealogies  unite,  there  was  but  one  list  to  refer  to, 
and  that  the  absence  of  entries  in  the  sacred  register  required  it  to  be 
supplemented  by  a  reference  to  the  State  chronicles  ?' 

The  two  lists  may  be  set  side  by  side : 


FROM  DAVID  IN 

BOTH    LISTS. 

FROM  SALATHIEL, 

IN   BOTH   LISTS. 

After  Matthew. 

After  Luke. 

After  Matthew. 

After  Luke. 

I.   Solomon. 

Nathan. 

i.  Zorobabel. 

Zorobabel. 

2.  Roboam. 

Mattatha. 

2.  Abiud. 

Rhesa. 

3.  Abia. 

Menan. 

3.  Eliakim. 

Joanna. 

4.  Asa. 

Melea. 

4.  Azor. 

Juda. 

5.  Josaphat. 

Eliakim. 

5.  Sadoc. 

Joseph. 

6.  Joram. 

Jonan. 

6.  Achim. 

Semei. 

fj                

Joseph. 

7.  Eliud. 

Mattathias. 

8.      — 

Juda. 

8.  Eleazar. 

Maath. 

9-       — 

Simeon. 

9-      — 

Nagge. 

10.  Ozias. 

Levi. 

10.         — 

Esli. 

II.  Joatham. 

Matthat. 

ii.      — 

Naum. 

12.  Achaz. 

Jorim. 

12.         — 

Amos. 

13.  Ezekias. 

Eliezer. 

J3-      — 

Mattathias. 

14.   Manasses. 

Jose. 

14.      — 

Joseph. 

15.  Amon. 

Er. 

15.      — 

Janna. 

1  6.  Josias. 

Elmodam. 

16.      — 

Melchi. 

17-       — 

Cosam. 

17- 

Levi. 

18,  Jechonias. 

Addi. 

18.  Matthan. 

Matthat. 

19. 

Melchi. 

IQ.  Jacob. 

Heli. 

20.         — 

Neri.                       20.  Joseph. 

Joseph  or  Mary. 

The  Date  of  our  Lord's  Birth. 

MATTHEW  ii.  I  :  '  Now  when  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judaea  in  the 
days  of  Herod  the  king.' 

Difficulty. — The  known  date  of  the  death  of  Herod  makes  the  date 
of  our  Lord's  birth  as  A.D.  i  nearly  impossible. 

Explanation. — It  is  now  well-nigh  universally  recognised  that 
the  usual  date  of  our  Lord's  birth  as  A.D.  i  is  three,  if  not  four,  years 


2  14      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

too  late.  Whether  it  should  be  B.C.  3,  or  B.C.  4,  seems  still  uncertain. 
Dr.  E.  R.  Conder  argues  for  B.C.  4,  and  his  arguments  are  likely  to 
convince  our  readers,  and  ensure  the  acceptance  of  this  date. 

'  In  order  to  determine  the  date  of  the  Nativity  with  such  accuracy 
as  may  be  found  possible,  we  have  first  to  ascertain  the  date  of 
Herod's  death,  and  then  to  consider  by  what  interval  of  time  our 
Saviour's  birth  probably  preceded  it.  Neither  of  these  points  is  free 
from  difficulty.  Absolute  certainty  (let  us  at  once  candidly  admit) 
is  not  attainable.  But  when  the  facts  are  clearly  stated,  they  lead  to 
a  conclusion  in  which  we  may  rest  with  a  near  approach  to  certainty, 
which  is  greatly  confirmed  when  we  find  how  the  date  thus  deter- 
mined harmonises  with  all  the  after-facts  of  the  Gospel  history. 

*  Herod  the  Great  reigned,  as  Josephus  informs  us,  thirty-four 
years  from  the  time  when  he  took  Jerusalem  by  storm,  and  put 
Antigonus  to  death.  This  was  in  the  month  Sivan,  in  the  summer 
of  A.U.C.  717  (B.C.  37),  three  years  after  Herod  had  been  made  king 
by  the  Roman  Senate.  According  to  our  mode  of  reckoning,  there- 
fore, Herod's  thirty-fourth  year  would  be  from  Sivan  of  the  year  750 
(B.C.  4)  to  Sivan  of  751  (B.C.  3).  But  the  Jewish  custom  was  to 
reckon  regnal  years  from  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  sacred  year, 
at  whatever  time  the  actual  accession  might  take  place.  Consequently, 
Herod's  thirty-fourth  year,  by  Jewish  reckoning,  was  from  i  Nisan  750 
to  the  eve  of  i  Nisan  751  (B.C.  4-3).  Between  these  two  dates  his 
death  must  have  occurred.  And  even  if  he  died  in  the  first  week 
of  Nisan,  he  would  be  held  to  have  "  reigned  thirty-four  years  "- 
that  is,  entered  his  thirty-fourth  year  as  king,  though  the  actual 
anniversary  of  his  accession  was  not  till  between  two  or  three  months 
later. 

'  Now,  if  the  account  given  by  Josephus  be  carefully  studied,  it 
will  be  found  to  furnish  decisive  proof  that  the  death  of  Herod 
occurred  shortly  before  the  Passover.  The  facts  may  be  briefly 
stated  thus.  Herod  died  at  Jericho,  having  previously  gone  to  the 
hot  baths  of  Callirhoe,  beyond  Jordan,  in  the  vain  hope  of  gaining 
some  alleviation  of  his  intolerable  sufferings.  Archelaus,  his  son 
and  successor,  after  providing  a  magnificent  funeral,  and  observing 
the  necessary  week  of  mourning,  came  to  Jerusalem,  sacrificed  in 
the  Temple,  and  addressed  the  people  in  regal  state.  At  first  he 
was  well  received,  but  in  the  evening  a  public  lamentation  burst  forth 
throughout  the  city,  not  for  King  Herod,  but  for  certain  Rabbins, 
whom  he  had  cruelly  put  to  death.  These  Rabbins,  when  the  king 
was  thought  to  be  dying,  had  instigated  their  disciples  to  hew  down 
a  golden  eagle,  erected  by  him  over  the  great  gate  of  the  Temple. 


THE  DATE  OF  OUR  LORD'S  BIRTH.  215 

Herod  had  taken  savage  vengeance,  causing  the  Rabbins,  and  their 
most  active  followers,  to  be  burnt  alive.  The  Passover,  Josephus 
tells  us,  was  now  approaching.  The  multitudes  who,  on  that  account, 
were  arriving  at  Jerusalem,  swelled  the  disturbance  to  a  formidable 
sedition,  which  Archelaus  suppressed  with  severity  worthy  of  his 
father,  three  thousand  persons  being  massacred  by  his  troops.  After 
establishing  order  in  this  fashion,  he  hastened  to  Rome,  to  seek  the 
imperial  sanction  to  his  father's  testament,  appointing  him  King  of. 
Judaea.  At  Caesarea  he  met  the  procurator  of  Syria,  on  his  way  to 
Jerusalem,  to  take  charge  of  Herod's  wealth  in  the  name  of  the 
Roman  Government.  No  exact  dates  are  given  by  Josephus,  but 
Archelaus  was  at  Rome  before  Pentecost ;  manifestly  in  the  summer 
of  the  same  year. 

4  The  question  then  arises  :  Was  this  Passover,  which  thus  followed 
the  death  of  Herod,  that  of  B.C.  4,  or  B.C.  3  ?  Here  we  have  a 
remarkable  note  of  time.  On  the  night  after  the  Rabbins  were 
burned,  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  took  place.  Astronomers  find  that 
the  only  eclipse  to  which  this  statement  can  refer  occurred  on 
March  13,  B.C.  4  (A.U.C.  750).  The  succeeding  full  moon,  April  n, 
was  that  of  the  Passover  (Nisan  14-15);  and  Nisan  i  fell  on 
March  29.  Now,  if  we  deduct  the  seven  days  of  mourning,  in- 
cluding the  funeral,  together  with  at  least  three  or  four  days  for  the 
visit  of  Archelaus  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  influx  of  the  multitude 
before  the  Passover,  we  are  thrown  back  to  April  i  or  March  31 
(Nisan  4  or  3)  as  the  latest  day  on  which  we  can  suppose  the  death 
of  Herod  to  have  happened.' 

Arguing  the  probable  length  of  the  events  between  Herod's  death 
and  our  Lord's  birth,  giving  four  or  five  weeks  between  the  visit  of  the 
Magi  and  the  death,  forty  days  for  the  'presentation,'  and  an  interval 
between  the  '  presentation  '  and  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  we  are  led  to 
fix  the  first  part  of  January,  A.U.C.  750  (B.C.  4),  as  the  precise 
period  of  our  Lord's  birth. 

There  is  no  proof  that  December  25  is  the  actual  day,  but  it 
cannot  be  many  days  off  the  true  date ;  and,  indeed,  the  Old 
Christmas-Day,  January  6,  may  be  the  absolutely  correct  day. 


216      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


The  Last  Arrival  at  Jerusalem. 

MARK  xi.  I  :  '  And  when  they  came  nigh  to  Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage  and 
Bethany,  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  He  sendeth  forth  two  of  His  disciples.' 

Difficulty. — A  comparison  of  the  Gospel  narratives  leaves  us  quite 
uncertain  as  to  what  our  Lord  did  immediately  on  His  arrival  at 
Jerusalem. 

Explanation. — It  will  be  helpful  to  set  the  four  narratives 
together,  and,  to  ensure  as  much  exactness  as  possible,  they  may  be 
given  from  the  '  Revised  Version.' 

Matthew  xxi.  i,  2  :  'And  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  Jerusalem, 
and  came  unto  Bethphage,  unto  the  Mount  of  Olives,  then  Jesus 
sent  two  disciples,  saying  unto  them,  Go  into  the  village  that  is  over 
against  you,  and  straightway  ye  shall  find  an  ass  tied,  and  a  colt  with 
her  ;  loose  them,  and  bring  them  unto  me.' 

Matthew  appears  to  make  the  triumphal  entry  take  place  on  the 
evening  of  the  day  that  Jesus  left  Jericho ;  but  his  words  will  allow 
of  a  time  of  tarrying  at  Bethany,  or  Bethphage. 

Mark  xi.  i  :  '  And  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  Bethphage  and 
Bethany,  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  he  sendeth  two  of  His  disciples.' 

Mark  differs  from  Matthew  in  the  tense  '  draw,'  and  in  adding  the 
name  Bethany ;  but  he  leaves  the  same  impression,  that  the  trium- 
phal entry  took  place  immediately  on  our  Lord's  arrival  from 
Jericho. 

Luke  xix.  28,  29  :  'And  when  He  had  thus  spoken,  He  went  on 
before,  going  up  to  Jerusalem.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  He 
drew  nigh  unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  that  is  called 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  He  sent  two  of  His  disciples,'  etc. 

Luke  distinctly  confirms  the  view  of  the  previous  Evangelists. 

John  xii.  i  :  '  Jesus,  therefore,  six  days  before  the  Passover,  came 
to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was,  whom  Jesus  raised  from  the  dead.' 
Then  an  account  is  given  of  a  family  feast  held  at  Bethany,  which 
could  not  have  been  given  on  the  Friday  night,  because  the  Sabbath 
began  at  sundown  on  Friday ;  but  may  have  been  given  on  Saturday 
night,  because  the  Sabbath  ended  at  sundown  of  Saturday,  and  feasts 
were  often  held  after  the  Sabbath  closed. 

John  xii.  12:  'On  the  morrow  a  great  multitude  that  had  come 
to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming  to  Jerusalem, 
took  the  branches  of  the  palm-trees,  and  went  forth  to  meet  Him,' 
etc.  Verse  14  :  '  And  Jesus,  having  found  a  young  ass,  sat  thereon,' 
etc. 


THE  LAST  ARRIVAL  AT  JERUSALEM.          217 

John  gives  fuller  details,  and  seems  to  correct  the  impression 
made  on  us  by  the  Synoptists,  that  Jesus  visited  Jerusalem  on  the 
night  of  His  arrival  from  Jericho.  If  the  references  of  the  four 
writers  are  taken  literally,  it  would  seem  necessary  to  assume  two 
triumphal  entries,  one  on  the  arrival  from  Jericho,  on  the  Friday 
afternoon,  and  a  second  on  the  following  Sunday  morning. 

We  may  now  see  how  this  difficulty  has  been  treated  by  competent 
writers.  Dean  Mansel  states  the  explanations  that  are  possible,  but 
scarcely  indicates  his  own  judgment.  '  The  time  is  fixed  by  the  data 
furnished  by  St.  John  (xii.  i).  Our  Lord  came  to  Bethany  six  days 
before  the  Passover,  i.e.,  on  the  8th  Nisan,  the  reckoning  being 
exclusive  of  the  Passover-day  itself,  the  i4th,  but  inclusive  of  the  day 
of  arrival.  If  we  regard  Friday,  the  day  of  the  Lord's  crucifixion,  as 
the  1 4th,  the  8th  was  the  Sabbath,  and  the  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
which  took  place  the  next  day  (John  xii.  12),  was  'on  the  Qth  Nisan, 
the  day  now  known  as  Palm  Sunday.  If  we  adopt  the  view  that  our 
Lord  was  crucified  on  the  i5th,  and  consequently  that  the  Passover 
fell  on  Thursday,  the  arrival  at  Bethany  must  be  placed  on  the 
Friday,  and  we  must  suppose  that  our  Lord  remained  at  Bethany 
over  the  Sabbath,  and  entered  Jerusalem  on  Sunday  the  loth  Nisan. 
Both  theories  agree  in  assigning  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  to  Palm 
Sunday,  though  differing  as  to  the  day  of  the  month ;  but  in  the  latter 
case  we  must  suppose  a  day  to  intervene  between  the  entry  into 
Bethany  (John  xii.  i)  and  the  supper  (verse  2),  of  which  there  is  no 
hint  in  St.  John's  narrative.' 

Canon  Westcott  remarks  :  '  The  pause  at  Bethany  is  not  mentioned 
by  the  Synoptists  ;  but  there  is  nothing  surprising  in  the  omission.' 
On  John  xii.  12  he  has  the  following  note:  'In  this  incident  again 
St.  John's  narrative  is  parallel  to  that  of  the  Synoptists,  but  more 
exact  in  details.  The  Synoptists  say  nothing  of  the  rest  at  Bethany ; 
and  it  appears  at  first  sight  as  if  they  placed  the  triumphal  entry  on 
the  same  day  as  the  journey  from  Jericho.  And  yet  in  each  case 
there  is  the  sign  of  a  break  :  Matt.  xxi.  i ;  Luke  xix.  29.  And  the 
return  to  Bethany  noticed  by  St.  Mark  (xi.  u)  suggests  at  least  that 
village  for  the  starting  point.' 

Professor  Watkins  observes  that  the  whole  question  of  the  arrange- 
ment of  days  during  this  last  great  week  depends  upon  the  conclu- 
sion which  we  adopt  with  regard  to  the  day  on  which  our  Lord  was 
crucified.  '  St.  John  only  gives  the  definite  note  of  time,  connecting 
the  entry  with  the  previous  sojourn  at  Bethany.  The  Synoptic 
narrative  is  more  general,  describing  the  approach  from  Jericho,  and 
naming  Bethphage  (Matthew  and  Luke)  and  Bethany  (Mark  and 


2i8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Luke)  as  stages  in  the  journey,  but  not  connecting  the  Supper  at 
Bethany  with  the  entry.' 

Vallings  takes  the  view  which  seems,  in  every  way,  the  most 
reasonable.  '  While  Jewish  pilgrims  were  speculating  about  His 
coming  to  the  feast,  Jesus  spent  the  last  Friday  (evening)  before  His 
Passion  in  the  now  dearer  home  of  Bethany.  On  the  following  day 
He  shared  the  Sabbath  feast  with  Mary,  Martha,  and  Lazarus,  and 
apparently  other  guests,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper.' 

With  his  descriptive  power  Farrar  writes  of  the  journey  on  the 
Friday :  The  disciples  '  fell  reverently  back,  and  followed  Him  with 
many  a  look  of  awe  as  He  slowly  climbed  the  long,  sultry,  barren 
gorge  which  led  up  to  Jerusalem  from  Jericho.  He  did  not  mean  to 
make  the  city  of  Jerusalem  His  actual  resting-place,  but  preferred  as 
usual  to  stay  in  the  loved  home  at  Bethany.  Thither  He  arrived  on 
the  evening  of  Friday,  Nisan  8  (March  31,  A.D.  30),  six  days  before 
the  Passover,  and  before  the  sunset  had  commenced  the  Sabbath 
hours.' 

Edersheim,  Stalker,  Pressense,  Geikie,  etc.,  agree  in  following  the  lead 
of  John's  narratives,  and  treat  the  triumphal  entry  as  taking  place  on 
the  Sunday  morning,  after  a  resting-time  at  Bethany  from  the  previous 
Friday  evening.  The  '  six  days '  mentioned  by  St.  John  may  be 
filled  up  thus.  Friday,  arrival  at  Bethany.  Saturday,  quiet  Sabbath, 
with  feast  after  Sabbath  was  ended.  Sunday,  triumphal  entry. 
Monday,  second  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Tuesday,  third  visit.  Wednes- 
day, quiet  day  at  Bethany.  Thursday,  the  Passover  supper.  The 
mode  of  reckoning  the  day  from  sunset  to  sunset  makes  our  calcula- 
tion very  difficult.  The  evening  of  the  previous  day  may  be 
reckoned  a  day,  or  it  may  not. 


The  Passovers  in  Christ's  Ministry,  or  The 
Unknown  Feast. 

JOHN  ii.  13  :  '  And  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand,  and  Jesus  went  up  to 
Jerusalem.' 

Question. — Do  the  references  to  this  feast  in  the  Gospels  help  to  a 
decision  concerning  the  length  of  our  Lord's  ministry  ? 

Answer. — Very  much  depends  on  the  decision  to  which  we  come 
concerning  the  feast  that  is  mentioned,  without  being  defined,  in 
John  v.  i  :  '  After  this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  and  Jesus  went 
up  to  Jerusalem.'  This  '  feast '  has  been  identified  by  some  writers 
with  each  of  the  great  Jewish  festivals,  and  even  with  the  minor  ones. 


THE  PASSOVERS  IN  CHRIST'S  MINISTRY.      219 

Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  Lightfoot,  Neander,  Greswell,  etc.,  regard  it  as  the 
Passover.  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Calvin,  Bengel,  etc.,  prefer  Pentecost. 
And  Ewald  advocates  Tabernacles.  Caspari  prefers  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  and  Wieseler,  Meyer,  Godet,  etc.,  plead  for  the  claims 
of  the  Feast  of  Purim.  On  a  subject  involving  so  much  diversity  of 
opinion,  it  will  be  wise  only  to  give  the  material  for  the  formation  of 
a  satisfactory  judgment. 

Professor  H.  W.  Watkivs,  M.A.,  puts  the  case  succinctly  and 
suggestively :  *  The  time-limits  are  ch.  iv.  35,  which  was  in  Tebeth 
(January),  and  ch.  vi.  4,  which  brings  us  to  the  next  Passover  in 
Nisan  (April),  that  is,  an  interval  of  four  months,  the  year  being  an 
intercalary  one,  with  the  month  Veadar  (and  Adar)  added,  or,  as  we 
should  say,  with  two  months  of  March.  The  only  feast  which  falls 
in  this  interval  is  the  Feast  of  Purim,  and  it  is  with  this  that  the  best 
modern  opinion  identifies  the  feast  of  John  v.  i.  It  was  kept  on  the 
1 4th  of  Adar  (March),  in  commemoration  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
Jews  from  the  plots  of  Haman,  and  took  its  name  from  the  lots  cast 
by  him  (Esth.  iii.  7  ;  ix.  24,  et  seg.}.  It  was  one  of  the  most  popular 
feasts,  and  was  characterised  by  festive  rejoicings,  presents,  and  gifts 
to  the  poor.  At  the  same  time  it  was  not  one  of  the  great  feasts, 
and  while  the  writer  names  the  Passover  (chs.  ii.  13 ;  vi.  4  ;  xiii.  i), 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (ch.  vii.  2),  and  even  that  of  the  Dedication 
(ch.  x.  22),  this  has  no  further  importance  in  the  narrative  than  to 
account  for  the  fact  of  Jesus  being  again  in  Jerusalem.' 

Dr.  Piummer  says  that  this  Feast  of  Purim  was  '  a  boisterous 
feast,  and  some  have  thought  it  unlikely  that  Christ  would  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  it.  But  we  are  not  told  that  He  went  to  Jerusalem 
in  order  to  keep  the  feast ;  Purim  might  be  kept  anywhere.  More 
probably  He  went  because  the  multitudes  at  the  feast  would  afford 
great  opportunities  for  teaching.  Moreover,  it  does  not  follow  that 
because  some  made  this  feast  a  scene  of  unseemly  jollity,  therefore 
Christ  would  discountenance  the  feast  itself.' 

Dr.  E.  R.  Conder  brings  out  the  relation  of  this  feast  to  a  decision 
as  to  the  length  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  '  What  feast  this  was  is  a 
much-debated  and  important  question,  the  answer  to  which  has  been 
regarded  as  furnishing  the  key  to  the  chronology  of  the  Gospel 
narrative.  To  some  extent  it  does  so,  for,  if  this  feast  was  a  Passover, 
then  we  have  four  Passovers  distinctly  noted  in  St.  John's  Gospel 
(ii.  13 ;  v.  i ;  vi.  4 ;  xi.  55),  necessarily  implying  a  duration  of  three 
years  for  our  Lord's  ministry.  The  converse,  however,  is  not  true. 
If  it  was  not  a  Passover,  it  does  not  follow  that  that  ministry  lasted 
less  than  three  years.  If  it  was  not  the  Passover,  it  does  not  in  fact 


220      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

greatly  matter  to  the  Gospel  chronology  what  feast  it  was.  For,  in 
addition  to  the  separate  evidence  on  which  we  assign  the  cleansing  of 
the  Temple  to  A.D.  27,  and  the  Crucifixion  to  A.D.  30,  we  have 
independent  proof  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels  of  the  occurrence  of  a 
Passoivr  between  that  which  preceded  the  Galilaean  ministry  and 
that  which  was  approaching  (John  vi.  4),  when  our  Lord  fed  the  five 
thousand  in  the  wilderness.  This  proof  consists  in  the  narrative  of 
the  walk  through  the  cornfields  on  the  Sabbath,  when  the  disciples 
offended  the  Pharisees  by  plucking  the  ripe  ears  of  corn  and  rubbing 
them  out  in  their  hands.  This  could  not  have  happened  before  a 
Passover,  not  only  because  the  corn  would  not  be  ripe,  but  because 
the  disciples  would  not  have  dared  to  gather  it  until  after  the  sacred 
sheaf  of  firstfruits  had  been  offered  in  the  Temple.  Moreover,  the 
difficult  phrase  in  Luke  vi.  i  (literally,  "  the  second- first  Sabbath  "), 
whatever  be  its  precise  meaning,  points,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  to 
a  Passover.  But  we  are  forbidden  by  Matt.  xii.  i  to  identify  the 
Passover  thus  indicated  with  that  at  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's 
ministry  (John  ii.  13).  And  unless  we  surrender  the  task  of  framing 
any  connected  view  of  the  Gospel  history,  we  are  equally  forbidden 
by  the  three  Synoptic  narratives  to  identify  it  with  that  Passover 
(John  vi.  4)  which  followed  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  return 
of  the  twelve,  and  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.' 

Edersheim  calls  this  the  '  Unknown  Feast.'  But  he  thinks  it  is 
clear  that  it  was  either  the  feast  of  'Wood  Offering,'  on  the  i5th  of 
Abh  (August),  when,  amidst  demonstrations  of  joy,  willing  givers 
from  all  parts  of  the  country  brought  the  wood  required  for  the 
service  of  the  altar  ;  or  else  the  '  Feast  of  Trumpets '  on  the  ist  Tisri 
(about  the  middle  of  September),  which  marked  the  beginning  of  the 
new  (civil)  year.' 

Canon  Westcott  says  :  '  The  fixed  points  between  which  the  feast 
lies  are  the  Passover  (ii.  23)  and  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the 
latter  event  taking  place,  according  to  the  universal  testimony  of 
MSS.  and  versions,  when  the  Passover  was  near  at  hand  '  (vi.  4). 
The  following  details  in  St.  John  bear  more  or  less  directly  upon  the 
date  :  (i)  After  leaving  Jerusalem  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Passover 
(iii.  22),  the  Lord  'tarried'  in  Judaea.  This  stay  was  sufficiently 
long  to  lead  to  results  which  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Baptist's 
disciples,  and  of  the  Pharisees  (iv.  i).  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  the 
interval  between  the  Passover  and  the  Lord's  return  to  Galilee  was 
such  that  the  memory  of  the  events  of  that  feast  was  fresh  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  had  been  present  at  it  (iv.  45),  and  from  the 
mention  of  '  the  feast,'  it  is  unlikely  that  any  other  great  feast  had 


THE  PASSOVERS  IN  CHRIST'S  MINISTRY.      221 

occurred  since.  (3)  The  ministry  of  the  Baptist,  who  was  at  liberty 
after  the  Passover  (iii.  26  ff.),  is  spoken  of  as  already  past  at  the 
unnamed  feast  (v.  35).  (4)  To  this  it  may  be  added  that  the 
language  in  which  the  Lord's  action  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath  is 
spoken  of  implies  that  His  teaching  on  this  was  now  familiar  to  the 
leaders  of  the  people.  (5)  The  phrase  used  in  iv.  35  has  special 
significance  if  the  conversation  took  place  either  shortly  after  seed- 
time, or  shortly  before  harvest.  (6)  The  circumstances  of  the  con- 
versation in  ch.  iv.  suit  better  with  summer  than  with  early  spring. 
(7)  At  the  time  when  the  healing  took  place  the  sick  lay  in  the  open 
air  under  the  shelter  of  the  porches.  (8)  From  vii.  21  ff.  it  appears 
that  the  Lord  had  not  visited  Jerusalem  between  this  unnamed  feast 
and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  that  the  incident  of  ver.  i  ff.  was 
fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people  at  the  later  visit.  (9)  It  is  im- 
probable that  the  feast  was  one  of  those  which  St.  John  elsewhere 
specifies  by  name.  A  consideration  of  these  data  seems  to  leave  the 
choice  between  Pentecost,  the  Feast  of  Trumpets  (the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment), and  Purim. 

Purim  (March)  would  fall  in  well  with  the  succession  of  events  ; 
but  the  character  of  the  discourse  has  no  connection  with  the  thoughts 
of  the  festival,  and  the  festival  itself  was  not  such  as  to  give  a  natural 
occasion  for  such  teaching. 

Pentecost  would  suit  well  with  the  character  of  the  discourse,  but 
the  interval  between  the  Passover  of  ch.  ii.  and  the  Pentecost  of  the 
same  year  would  scarcely  leave  sufficient  time  for  the  events  implied 
in  chs.  iii.,  iv.,  while  to  regard  it  as  the  Pentecost  of  the  year  after 
seems  to  make  the  interval  too  great.  '  The  tradition  of  the  early 
Greek  Church  identified  it  with  Pentecost.  Most  modern  com- 
mentators suppose  it  to  be  the  Feast  of  Purim.' 

Farrar  says  :  *  The  Synoptists  are  silent  respecting  any  visit  of 
Christ  to  the  Passover  between  His  twelfth  year  and  His  death,  and 
it  is  St.  John  alone,  who,  true  to  the  purpose  and  characteristics  of 
his  Gospel,  mentions  the  earliest  Passover  of  Christ's  ministry.  The 
feast  of  John  v.  i  would  make  four  Passovers,  if  it  were  certain  that 
a  Passover  was  intended.'  In  an  'additional  note'  Farrar  gives 
reasons  why,  if  the  feast  was  Purim,  St.  John  withheld  the  name. 
*  Looking,  therefore,  at  minor  feasts  (after  showing  that  it  could  not 
be  one  of  the  greater  feasts),  there  is  only  one  for  which  we  can  see 
a  reason  why  the  name  should  have  been  omitted,  viz.,  the  Feast  of 
Purim.  The  mere  fact  of  its  being  a  minor  feast  would  not  alone  be 
a  sufficient  reason  for  excluding  the  name,  since  St.  John  mentions 
by  name  the  comparatively  unimportant  and  humanly-appointed 


222      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Feast  of  the  Dedication.  But  the  name  of  this  feast  was  represented 
by  a  familiar  Greek  word  (Encaenia),  and  explained  itself ;  whereas 
the  Feast  of  Purim  was  intensely  Jewish,  and  the  introduction  of  the 
name  without  an  explanation  would  have  been  unintelligible.  Purim 
means  "  lots,"  and  if  St.  John  had  merely  translated  the  name  into 
Greek,  it  might  have  led  to  very  mistaken  impressions.  Moreover, 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  most  unimportant,  non-religious,  and  ques- 
tionably-observed of  the  Jewish  feasts,  would  be  an  additional  reason 
for  leaving  the  name  unnoticed.' 


The  Census  of  Quirinius. 

LUKE  ii.  r,  2  :  '  Now,  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  there  went  out  a  decree 
from  Cassar  Augustus,  that  all  the  world  should  be  enrolled.  This  was  the  first 
enrolment  made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria.' 

Difficulty. — The  Roman  records  cannot  readily  be  harmonised 
with  this  state?nent. 

Explanation. — Later  writers  are  not  able  to  improve  upon  the 
note  given  by  Bishop  Ellicott  in  his  '  Hulsean  Lecture,'  p.  58.  We 
give  this  note  in  full.  Referring  to  Luke  ii.  2,  he  says:  'Without 
entering  at  length  into  this  vexed  question,  we  may  remark,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  general  reader,  that  the  simple  and  grammatical  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  as  they  appear  in  all  the  best  MSS.  (B  alone  omits 
yj  before  avoypayfy,  must  be  this  :  "  This  taxing  took  place  as  a  first 
one  while  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria  " ;  and  that  the  difficulty 
is  to  reconcile  this  with  the  assertion  of  Tertullian,  that  the  taxing 
took  place  under  Sentius  Saturninus,  and  with  the  apparent  historical 
fact  that  Quirinius  did  not  become  president  of  Syria  till  nine  or  ten 
years  afterwards.  There  are  apparently  only  two  sound  modes  of 
explaining  the  apparent  contradiction  (I  dismiss  the  mode  of  regard- 
ing wpwrjj  as  equivalent  to  vrporepa  as  forced  and  artificial),  either  by 
supposing  (a)  that  riysuovtvovTos  (governor)  is  to  be  taken  in  a  general 
and  not  a  special  sense,  and  to  imply  the  duties  of  a  commissioner- 
extraordinary — a  view  perhaps  best  and  most  ably  advocated  by  the 
Abb£  Sanclemente,  but  open  to  the  objection  arising  from  the  special 
and  localising  term  r?j$  ^vpias  (of  Syria) ;  or  by  supposing  (3)  that, 
under  historical  circumstances  imperfectly  known  to  us,  Quirinius 
was  either  de  facto  or  de  jure  president  of  Syria,  exactly  as  St.  Luke 
seems  to  specify.  In  favour  of  this  latter  supposition  we  have  the 
thrice-repeated  assertion  of  Justin  Martyr  that  Quirinius  was 
president  at  the  time  in  question,  and  the  interesting  fact  recently 
brought  to  light  by  Zumpt  that,  owing  to  Cilicia,  when  separated  from 


THE  CENSUS  OF  QUIRIN1US.  223 

Cyprus,  being  united  to  Syria,  Quirinius,  as  governor  of  the  first- 
mentioned  province,  was  really  also  governor  of  the  last-mentioned — 
whether  in  any  kind  of  association  with  Saturninus,  or  otherwise, 
can  hardly  be  ascertained — and  that  his  subsequent  more  special 
connection  with  Syria  led  his  earlier  and  apparently  brief  connection 
to  be  thus  accurately  noticed.  This  last  view,  to  say  the  least, 
deserves  great  consideration,  and  has  been  adopted  by  Merivale.' 

On  the  face  of  it,  we  cannot  but  think  it  incredible  that  the 
Evangelist  should  have  erred  on  a  matter  of  public  history,  with  all 
the  contemporary  sources  of  information  open  to  him. 

Wieseler,  writing  before  the  publication  of  Zumpt's  investigations, 
combines  two  explanations  of  St.  Luke's  words,  which  he  translates : 
'  This  registration  was  the  first  (that  was  made)  before  Cyrenius  was 
governor  of  Syria.' 

Dean  Merivale  concludes  that  '  the  enumeration,  begun  or  ap- 
pointed under  Varus,  and  before  the  death  of  Herod,  was  completed 
after  that  event  by  Quirinius.' 

For  the  full  discussion  of  this  subject,  see  'Speaker's  Com- 
mentary,' N.  T.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  326-329 ;  an  '  additional  note '  by 
Canon  Cook. 

Slaughter  of  the  Bethlehem  Children. 

MATTHEW  ii.  16  :  '  Then  Herod,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  mocked  of  the  wise 
men,  was  exceeding  wroth,  and  sent  forth,  and  slew  all  the  male  children  that  were 
in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  the  borders  thereof,  from  two  years  old  and  under,  accord- 
ing to  the  time  which  he  had  carefully  learned  of  the  wise  men. 

Question. — Is  there  any  possibility  of  finding  corroboration  of  this 
incident  from  secular  history  ? 

Answer. — No  writer  has  succeeded  in  finding  the  remotest 
historical  allusion ;  and  it  is  certainly  remarkable  that  Josephus 
makes  no  mention  of  the  incident.  Carr  says  :  '  Profane  history 
passes  over  this  atrocity  in  silence.  But  Josephus  may  well  have 
found  his  pages  unequal  to  contain  a  complete  record  of  all  the  cruel 
deeds  of  a  tyrant  like  Herod.  Macaulay  relates  that  the  massacre  of 
Glencoe  is  not  even  alluded  to  in  the  pages  of  Evelyn,  a  most  diligent 
recorder  of  passing  political  events.  Besides,  the  crime  was  executed 
with  secrecy,  the  number  of  children  slain  was  probably  very  incon- 
siderable, for  Bethlehem  was  but  a  small  town  ;  and  though  it  was 
probably  crowded  at  the  time  (Luke  ii.  7),  the  number  of  very 
young  children  would  not  have  been  considerably  augmented  by 
those  strangers.' 

If  the  visit  of  the  Magi  is  placed  after  the  Presentation  in  the 


224      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Temple,  and  the  presentation  took  place  forty  days  after  birth,  we 
may  be  sure  that  the  special  visitors  to  Bethlehem  for  the  '  enrolling ' 
had  long  before  returned  to  their  homes.  Mary's  circumstances 
detained  her,  but  the  population  affected  by  Herod's  decree  could 
have  been  only  the  usual  one. 

In  a  note,  Geikie  says  :  '  Josephus,  though  he  does  not  expressly 
name  the  incident  at  Bethlehem,  has  two  allusions  to  a  massacre 
which  Herod  ordered  shortly  before  his  death,  which  very  probably 
refer  to  it.  He  says  :  "  Herod  did  not  spare  those  who  seemed 
most  dear  to  him  " — "  he  slew  all  those  of  his  own  family  who  sided 
with  the  Pharisees,  and  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
Emperor,  because  they  looked  forward  to  a  change  in  the  royal 
line:' ' 

Dean  Plumptre  acknowledges  that  the  slaughter  is  not  mentioned 
by  Josephus  or  any  other  writer.  But  he  adds :  '  Nor  need  we 
wonder  that  the  act  was  not  recorded  elsewhere.  The  population 
of  Bethlehem  could  hardly  have  been  more  than  two  thousand,  and 
the  number  of  children  under  two  years  of  age  in  that  number 
would  be  between  twenty  and  thirty.  The  cruelty  of  such  an  act 
would  naturally  impress  itself  on  the  local  memory,  from  which, 
directly  or  indirectly,  the  Gospel  record  was  derived,  and  yet  escape 
the  notice  of  an  historian  writing  eighty  or  ninety  years  afterwards 
of  the  wars  and  court  history  of  the  period.  The  secrecy  which 
marked  the  earlier  part  of  Herod's  scheme  (verse  7)  would  extend 
naturally,  as  far  as  Jerusalem  was  concerned,  to  its  execution.' 

Ellicott  and  Farrar  think  credit  may  be  given  to  a  sentence  from 
Macrobius,  who  lived  about  A.D.  400,  but  may  have  used  early 
materials.  He  says :  c  On  Augustus  being  informed  that  "  among 
the  boys  under  two  years  of  age  whom  Herod  ordered  to  be  slain 
in  Syria,  his  own  son  also  had  been  slain,"  exclaimed,  "  It  is  better 
to  be  Herod's  pig  than  his  son." '  Most  writers  regard  this  allusion 
as  quite  untrustworthy. 


Events   between   the   Baptism  and   First   Passover. 

MATTHEW  iv.  12,  13  :  '  Now  when  He  heard  that  John  was  delivered  up,  He 
withdrew  into  Galilee  ;  and,  leaving  Nazareth,  He  came  and  dwelt  in  Capernaum.' 

Difficulty. — A  chronological  arrangement  of  the  incidents  occur- 
ring during  the  six  months  following  on  our  Lord's  baptism  seems 
impossible. 

Explanation. — No  absolute  certainty  can  attach  to  any  scheme 
for  this  six  months  that  human  ingenuity  can  devise.  Probability  is 


THE  BAPTISM  AND  THE  FIRST  PASSOVER.     225 

the  utmost  that  can  be  attained  to  ;  but  there  is  a  very  general  agree- 
ment in  the  view  that  the  events  narrated  in  John  i.  19  to  iv.  54 
occupy  this  period.  Modern  Gospel  Harmonies  will  be  found 
arranged  on  this  supposition.  The  order  of  events  may,  with  good 
show  of  reasonableness,  be  mapped  out  as  follows  : 

Our  Lord's  Baptism. 

Forty-days'  Temptation. 

Return  to  John  Baptist,  and  call  of  Andrew  and  Simon. 

Visit  to  Galilee.     Call  of  Philip  and  Nathanael. 

Visit  to  Cana. 

Short  visit  to  Capernaum. 

First  Passover  at  Jerusalem. 

Interview  with  Nicodemus. 

Journey  through  Samaria. 

Beginning  of  the  longer  ministry  in  Galilee. 

These  certainly  take  the  early  months  of  the  year  A.D.  27,  and  the 
rest  of  the  year,  up  to  Passover  A.D.  28,  was  occupied  with 
evangelistic  labours  in  Galilee. 

It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  our  Lord,  on  His  first 
visit  to  Jerusalem  and  Judaea,  remained  only  a  few  weeks,  or  some 
months.  Probably  it  was  only  a  few  weeks ;  and  there  is  a  grave 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  associating  the  conversation  between  our  Lord 
and  Nicodemus  with  the  early  period  of  Christ's  ministry.  At  that 
time  His  teaching  and  miracles  could  not  have  become  common  talk, 
and  Nicodemus  could  have  had  no  ground  on  which  to  say:  'We 
know  that  Thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God,  for  no  man  can  do 
these  miracles  that  Thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  Him.' 

It  must  be  freely  admitted  that  it  is  a  hopeless  task  to  put  the 
contents  of  the  four  Gospels  into  historical  order.  It  has  been 
wisely  said  :  '  If  we  would  trace  a  clear  outline  of  our  Saviour's  life 
and  ministry,  we  must  be  content  with  an  outline,  and  must  resist 
the  temptation  to  labour  after  a  fulness  and  exactitude  for  which  the 
Gospels  do  not  supply  the  materials.  We  must  free  ourselves  from 
the  notion  that  the  object  of  the  Gospels  bound  the  writers  to  strict 
chronological  order,  so  that  in  relating  events  in  a  different  sequence 
they  are  guilty  of  misplacing  them,  or  if  they  pass  them  by  in  silence 
are  mutilating  history.  The  object  of  the  Gospels  is  neither  historical 
nor  biographical,  but  religious.  It  is  a  pedantic  and  inappreciative, 
not  to  say  ignorant,  criticism  which  censures  or  slights  the  Gospels 
as  "  fragmentary."  ' — Dr.  E.  R.  Conder. 


226      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


The  Date  of  our  Lord's  Baptism. 

MATTHEW  iii.  13  :  'Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be 
baptized  of  him.' 

Question. —  Will  a  discovery  of  the  date  of  this  incident  help  us  to 
fix  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  our  Lord^s  ministry  ? 

Answer. — Dr.  E.  R.  Conder  discusses  this  question,  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  date  given  for  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Gospel  Harmonies  give  A.D.  26 
as  the  year  of  John's  ministry,  and  of  our  Lord's  baptism  by 
him. 

'  The  Evangelist  Luke  states  with  unusual  fulness  the  date  of  the 
preparatory  mission  of  John.  "  In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  Caesar  ....  the  word  of  God  came  unto  John,  the  son  of 
Zacharias,  in  the  wilderness"  (Luke  iii.  i,  2).  Singularly  enough, 
this  very  exactness  is  a  source  of  difficulty.  Augustus  Caesar  died, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Tiberius,  in  August,  A.D.  14.  Reckoning 
from  this  date,  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  was  from  August,  A.D.  28, 
to  August,  A.D.  29.  This  would  give  us  the  spring  of  A.D.  29  for  the 
Passover  following  our  Lord's  baptism,  at  which  He  cleansed  the 
Temple ;  and  (as  will  presently  be  shown)  the  early  part  of  that  year 
for  His  baptism.  But  this  does  not  fit  with  the  date  which  on  other 
grounds  we  are  led  to  assign  to  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  ministry, 
viz.,  A.D.  27.  These  grounds  are  briefly  as  follows  : 

'(i)  According  to  Luke  iii.  23,  Jesus  was  about  thirty  years  of  age 
at  His  baptism.  (There  is  a  difficulty,  concerning  which  scholars  are 
not  agreed,  regarding  the  meaning  of  the  word  beginning,  and  the 
exact  reading  of  the  text ;  but  this  does  not  affect  the  general  sense.) 
If  we  have  been  correct  in  fixing  the  Nativity  about  the  beginning  (a 
little  before  or  after)  of  B.C.  4,  then  in  the  spring  of  A.D.  29  our  Lord 
would  be  more  than  thirty-two  years  of  age. 

'  (2)  At  the  Passover  at  which  Jesus  began  His  public  ministry,  the 
rebuilding  of  the  Temple  had  been  going  on  during  forty-six  years 
(John  ii.  20).  Now  the  building  of  the  Temple  was  begun  by  Herod 
the  Great  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign.  (See  Josephus, 
Ant.  xv.  ii.  i.)  Herod's  eighteenth  year  was  from  ist  Nisan  of 
A.U.C.  734  to  the  same  time,  A.U.C.  735.  Therefore,  adding  forty- 
five  complete  years  at  the  Passover  (i.e.  Nisan  i5th  to  2ist)  in 
A.U.C.  780  (A.D.  27),  forty-six  regnal  years  had  elapsed,  and  the  forty- 
seventh  had  just  begun,  from  the  year  in  which  the  rebuilding  com- 
menced. 


THE  DATE  OF  OUR  LORD'S  BAPTISM.          227 

'  (3)  The  date  A.D.  27  harmonizes  with  the  view,  strongly  established 
on  other  grounds,  that  our  Lord's  ministry  occupied  three  years,  and 
that  the  crucifixion  took  place  A.D.  30. 

'  Although  it  is  necessary  to  state  thus  fully  this  difficulty,  since  it 
affects  the  entire  scheme  of  Gospel  Chronology,  the  solution  is  simple 
and  satisfactory.  The  reign  of  Tiberius  as  sole  Emperor  began  at  the 
death  of  Augustus  ;  but  he  had  been/0/;*/  Emperor  with  Augustus — 
a  sort  of  Vice-Emperor — for  two  years  previously.  The  word  used 
by  St.  Luke,  translated  "  reign,"  by  no  means  implies  sole  empire,  but 
applies  with  perfect  accuracy  to  this  share  in  the  government,  which 
had  special  reference  to  the  provinces.  Insomuch  that,  had  St.  Luke 
spoken  of  A.D.  27  as  "the  thirteenth  year  of  the  government  of 
Tiberius,"  his  critics  might  have  taxed  him  with  ignorance  of  this 
association  of  Tiberius  with  Augustus  in  the  Imperial  sovereignty. 
With  this  explanation,  both  the  Evangelist's  chronology  and  his 
phraseology  are  seen  to  be  perfectly  accurate.  We  therefore  under- 
stand "  the  fifteenth  year "  of  Tiberius  to  have  begun  in  August, 
A.D.  26.  And  we  may  with  great  probability  suppose  that  "  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  John,"  and  he  began  his  public  ministry, 
about  the  close  of  the  summer,  or  the  beginning  of  autumn,  shortly 
before  the  time  when,  at  the  signal  of  the  early  rains,  the  ploughman 
and  the  sower  go  forth  to  their  work.' 

If  Dr.  Conder's  explanation  be  accepted,  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
took  place  early  in  the  year  A.D.  27. 

Vallings  says :  '  It  was  "  in  winter,  according  to  the  unanimous 
tradition  of  the  early  Church,"  and  possibly  on  January  6  or  10 
(B.C.  4),  according  to  the  Basilidean  tradition,  that  the  Messiah  stood 
unrecognised  on  the  bank.'  But  this  is  quite  an  impossible  date.  It 
is  the  date  of  our  Lord's  birth,  not  of  His  baptism. 

Bishop  Ellicott  says :  *  It  was  now  probably  towards  the  close  of 
the  Year  of  the  City  780  when  the  Holy  Jesus,  moved  we  may 
humbly  presume  by  that  Spirit  which  afterwards  directed  His  feet  to 
the  wilderness,  leaves  the  home  of  His  childhood,  to  return  to  it  no 
more  as  His  earthly  abode.'  His  explanation  of  St.  Luke's  reference 
to  Tiberius  coincides  with  that  of  Conder.  Ellicott  has  a  further  note 
as  follows  :  '  The  conclusion  at  which  Wieseler  arrives,  after  a  careful 
consideration  of  all  the  historical  data  that  tend  to  fix  the  time  of 
our  Lord's  baptism,  is  this :  Jesus  must  have  been  baptized  by  John 
not  earlier  than  February,  780  A.U.C.  (the  extreme  "  terminus  a  quo  " 
supplied  by  St.  Luke),  nor  later  than  the  winter  of  the  same  year 
(the  extreme  "  terminus  ad  quern  "  supplied  by  St.  John).  Wieseler 
himself  fixes  upon  the  spring  or  summer  of  780  A.U.C.  as  the  exact 

I— 2 


228      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

date  ;  but  to  this  period  there  are  two  objections :  First,  that  if,  as 
seems  reasonable,  we  agree  (with  Wieseler)  to  fix  the  deputation  to 
the  Baptist  about  the  close  of  February,  781  A.U.C.,  we  shall  have 
a  period  of  eight  months,  viz.,  from  the  middle  of  780  to  the  end  of 
the  second  month  of  781  wholly  unaccounted  for.  Secondly ',  that  it 
is  almost  the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  early  church  that  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord  took  place  in  winter •,  or  in  the  early  part  of  the 
year.  The  tradition  of  the  Basilideans,  mentioned  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  that  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  took  place  on  the  nth  or 
1 5th  of  Tybi  (January  6  or  10)  deserves  consideration,  both  from  the 
antiquity  of  the  sect,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  baptism  of  our  Lord 
was  in  their  system  an  epoch  of  the  highest  importance.' 

Edersheim  supports  the  date  thus  assigned  by  Ellicott,  and  also 
the  idea  that  the  baptism  took  place  in  the  winter-time. 


Our  Lord's  Visits  to  Nazareth. 

LUKE  iv.  1 6  :   '  And  He  came  to  Nazareth,  where  He  had  been  brought  up.' 
MATTHEW  xiii.  53,  54  :  '  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  finished  these 
parables,  He  departed  thence.     And  coming  into   His  own  country '  (the  Greek 
freely  rendered  is  '  His  old  home  ')  '  He  taught  them  in  their  synagogue.' 

MARK  vi.  i  :  '  And  He  went  out  from  thence,  and  came  into  His  own  country  ; 
and  His  disciples  follow  Him.' 

Difficulty. — St.  Luke  may  only  give  a  detailed  account  of  what 
Matthew  and  Mark  briefly  allude  to,  and  so  these  passages  may  refer 
to  the  same  visit. 

Explanation. — The  fact  that  certain  visits  are  recorded  does  not 
involve  that  no  other  visits  besides  these  were  paid.  His  rejection  is 
not  likely  to  have  occurred  twice  over ;  and  it  has  been  again  and 
again  shown  that  the  Bible  writers  were  not  anxious  about  chrono- 
logical order.  Each  of  the  Synoptists  record  a  visit  to  Nazareth 
which  was  of  special  interest,  and  we  may  reasonably  incline  to  the 
idea  that  only  one  such  visit  was  paid.  But  the  Bible-writers  favour 
the  idea  of  two  visits.  Of  these  Wieseler,  Tischendorf,  Krarft,  and 
Meyer,  may  be  referred  to.  There  is  a  mention  of  Nazareth  in 
Matthew  iv.  13,  but  there  was  no  such  excitement,  as  Luke  narrates, 
in  His  leaving  Nazareth  on  that  occasion. 

Dean  Plumptre  gathers  up  all  that  need  be  said  on  this  subject. 
'  The  visit  to  Nazareth,  recorded  in  Matthew  in  almost  identical  terms 
with  Mark,  has  so  many  points  of  resemblance  with  the  narrative  of 
Luke  iv.  16-31,  that  many  critics  have  supposed  it  to  be  a  less 
complete  account  of  the  same  fact.  On  this  assumption  the  narra- 
tive must  be  misplaced  in  its  relation  to  other  facts  in  one  or  other 


OUR  LORD'S  VISITS  TO  NAZARETH.  229 

of  the  Gospels.  A  dislocation  of  some  kind  must  indeed  be  admitted 
in  any  case,  as  St.  Mark  places  it  after  the  resurrection  of  Jairus's 
daughter,  and  makes  that  event  follow  the  cure  of  the  Gadarene 
demoniac,  and  places  that  on  the  next  day  after  the  first  use  of 
parables.  We  are  compelled  to  admit  the  almost  entire  absence  of 
any  trustworthy  notes  of  chronological  sequence,  beyond  the  group- 
ing, in  some  cases,  of  a  few  conspicuous  facts.  In  comparing,  how- 
ever, St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  with  St.  Luke,  there  seems  no 
sufficient  ground  for  hastily  assuming  identity.  The  third  Gospel 
places  the  visit  which  it  narrates  at  the  very  beginning  of  our  Lord's 
work,  and  as  giving  the  reason  of  His  removal  to  Capernaum.  Here 
(in  Matthew)  there  is  no  outburst  of  violent  enmity,  such  as  we  find 
there  (in  Luke),  but  simple  amazement.  It  seems,  therefore,  more 
probable  that  we  have  here  a  short  account  (short  and  imperfect,  it 
may  be,  because  our  Lord  went  without  His  disciples)  of  another 
effort  to  bring  the  men  of  Nazareth  to  acknowledge  Him,  if  not  as 
the  Christ,  at  least  as  a  Prophet  The  circumstances  of  the  case  in 
St.  Matthew's  record  suggest  another  motive  as,  at  least,  possible. 
He  had  recently,  as  in  Matt.  xii.  48,  when  His  mother  and  His 
brethren  had  come  in  their  eager  anxiety  to  interrupt  His  work, 
spoken  in  words  that  seemed  to  repel  them  to  a  distance  from  Him. 
What  if  this  visit  were  meant  to  show  that,  though  as  a  Prophet  He 
could  not  brook  that  interruption,  home  affections  were  not  dead  in 
Him,  that  His  heart  still  yearned  over  His  brethren  and  His  towns- 
men, and  that  He  sought  to  raise  them  to  a  higher  life?  On 
comparing  the  account  here  with  that  in  St.  Luke,  it  would  seem 
almost  certain  that  there  was  now  a  less  direct  assertion  of  His 
claims  as  the  Christ  than  there  had  been  before — a  proclamation  of 
the  laws  of  the  kingdom  rather  than  of  His  own  position  in  it.  And 
so  the  impression  is  one  of  wonder  at  His  wisdom,  not  of  anger  or 
scorn  at  what  He  claims  to  be.' 

Geikie,  writing  of  the  scene  described  in  St.  Luke,  says  :  '  But 
though  He  left  Nazareth  never  to  return.  He  remained  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood for  a  time,  preaching  in  the  villages  of  the  great  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  far  and  near.'  He  appears,  therefore,  to  identify  the  visits 
as  differing  records  of  one  occasion. 

Edersheim  gives  the  matter  a  very  careful  consideration,  and  pre- 
sents his  conclusion  in  the  following  note.  *  Many,  even  orthodox 
commentators,  hold  that  this  history  in  Luke  is  the  same  as  that 
related  in  Matthew  and  in  Mark.  But,  for  the  reasons  about  to  be 
stated,  I  have  come,  although  somewhat  hesitatingly,  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke,  and  those  of  St.  Matthew  and 


230      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

St.  Mark,  refer  to  different  events,  i.  The  narrative  in  St.  Luke 
(which  we  shall  call  a)  refers  to  the  commencement  of  Christ's 
ministry,  while  those  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  (which  we  shall 
call  b)  are  placed  at  a  later  period.  Nor  does  it  seem  likely  that 
our  Lord  would  have  entirely  abandoned  Nazareth  after  one  rejection. 
2.  In  narrative  a  Christ  is  without  disciples ;  in  narrative  b  He  is 
accompanied  by  them.  3.  In  narrative  a  no  miracles  are  recorded 
— in  fact,  His  words  about  Elijah  and  Elisha  preclude  any  idea 
of  them ;  while  in  narrative  b  there  are  a  few,  though  not  many.  4. 
In  narrative  a  He  is  thrust  out  of  the  city  immediately  after  His 
sermon,  while  narrative  b  implies  that  He  continued  for  some  time 
in  Nazareth,  only  wondering  at  their  unbelief.  If  it  be  objected  that 
Jesus  could  scarcely  have  returned  to  Nazareth  after  the  attempt  on 
His  life,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  this  purpose  had  not  been 
avowed,  and  that  His  growing  fame  during  the  intervening  period 
may  have  rendered 'such  a  return  not  only  possible,  but  even  advis- 
able. The  coincidences  as  regards  our  Lord's  statement  about  the 
Prophet,  and  their  objection  as  to  His  being  the  carpenter's  son,  are 
only  natural  in  the  circumstances.' 

Farrar  favours  the  view  that  only  one  visit  to  Nazareth  is  narrated. 
'  And  so  He  left  them,  never  apparently  to  return  again,  never,  if  we 
are  right  in  the  view  here  taken,  to  preach  again  in  their  little 
synagogue.' 

Olshausen  says  :  '  Schleiermacher  has  conclusively  proved  that  the 
narratives  refer  to  the  same  occurrence.  For  if  the  narrative  of 
St.  Matthew  were  transferred  to  the  later  years  of  Christ's  life,  it  is 
not  easy  to  suppose  that  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  could  ask 
"Whence  hath  this  Man  this  wisdom?"  And  still  less  can  it  be 
thought  that  the  events  recorded  by  St.  Luke  are  posterior  to  those 
related  by  St.  Matthew.  In  point  of  internal  character  both  histories 
are  entirely  alike,  and  the  single  circumstance  that  countenances  the 
idea  of  their  being  distinct,  is  the  chronological  succession  of  events. 
This  very  fact,  however,  is  another  proof  that  there  is,  especially  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  the  absence  of  any  prominent  attempt  to 
trace  the  course  of  events  according  to  the  period  of  time  in  which 
they  happened.' 


MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE.  231 


SECTION    II. 
DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE. 


INTRODUCTORY     NOTE. 

'  SCIENCE  is  knowledge ;  it  deals  with  what  is,  or  may  be,  known  ; 
compels  a  clear  comprehension  of  truths  or  facts ;  has  little  to  do 
with  ingenious  theories.' 

Professor   W.   Griffiths  skilfully  indicates  the  general  relation  of 
Scripture  to  advancing  modern  science  :  *  Ever  since  the  great  revival 
of  learning,  and  the  entry  of  science  upon  that  prosperous  career  of 
discovery  which  she  still  pursues,  alarm  has  been  entertained  by  the 
disciples  of  revelation  lest  these  two  instructors  of  mankind  should 
come  into  collision  fatal  to  the  pretensions  of  the  latter.     And  the 
dread  of  this  mischance  has  betrayed  some  into  a  nervous  timidity, 
under  whose  influence  they  shrink  from  free  inquiry  themselves,  and 
are  slow  to  accept  its  proffered  fruit  from  others.     The  enemies  of 
the  Faith  have,  at  the  same  time,  been  quick  to  discern,  and  prone 
to  exaggerate,  real  or  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  disclosures 
of  Nature  and  the  statements  of  the  Book,  and  are  ever  ready  to  pro- 
claim the  authority  of  Scripture  undermined.     But  neither  the  fears 
of  friends  nor  the  hopes  of  foes  have  as  yet  been  realized.     The 
annals  of  geography,  astronomy,  and  geology  supply  notable  instances 
of  escape  from  shocks  which  threatened  disaster  to  the  Word  of  God, 
and  show  the  folly  of  those  frantic  efforts,  once  made  by  superstition, 
to  save  the  credit  of  the  Bible  by  trying  to  arrest  the  march  of  science. 
Happily,  no  body  of  clergy  could  now  be  found  to  pronounce  Colum- 
bus a  heretic  for  holding  it  possible  to  get  to  the  east  by  sailing  west. 
The  Church  has  ceased  to  maintain,  on  the  presumed  authority  of 
Scripture,  that  we  live  upon  a  vast  plain,  not  the  surface  of  a  globe. 
And,  in  our  day,  Galileo  would  not  have  been  driven  to  the  extremity 
of  avoiding  torture   by  recanting  his  theory  of  the  earth's  motion 
The  Bible  was  not  responsible  for  the  crude  notions  about  the  earth 
and  the  solar  system  which  prevailed  in  ignorant  times,  and  soon  the 
proscribed   views  were  fully  established,   without   prejudice  to  the 
Christian  Faith.     But  the  friends  of  the  Church  are  proverbially 
backward  in  trusting  the  inquisitive  spirit  of  the  age.     Weak  appre- 


232      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

hension,  exploded  in  one  direction,  crops  up  somewhere  else,  and 
always  lurks  in  the  rear  of  bold  research,  as  if  prepared  to  clog  its 
steps  and  prevent  a  progress  too  fast  and  far  for  the  exigencies  of 
theological  belief.  The  rapid  strides  of  geology  have  done  much  to 
keep  the  quaking  phantom  astir.  Those  who  first  hinted  that  sea- 
shells  found  at  the  tops  of  mountains  could  not  be  the  remains  of 
the  Deluge  were  looked  upon  with  an  unfriendly  eye  both  in  Popish 
and  Protestant  circles.  Again  and  again  has  the  veracity  of  the 
Bible  seemed  to  be  called  in  question  by  the  youthful  science,  but 
its  announcements  prove  to  be  expository  of,  not  contradictory  to, 
the  Word  of  God.  Instead  of  being  dishonoured,  revelation  is 
better  understood.  Not  a  few  of  the  excrescences  with  which 
popular  belief  disfigured  its  pages  have  been  swept  away.  Intelli- 
gent men  have  ceased  to  think  that  suffering  and  death  were  unknown 
on  earth  until  after  the  fall  of  man ;  that  fossil  plants  and  animals 
come  from  the  Creator's  hands  as  we  find  them  ;  that  the  world  was 
made  in  six  natural  days  ;  and  that  the  flood  extended  over  every 
part  of  the  habitable  globe.  .  .  .  The  science  which  now  helps  the 
Bible  would,  1,000  years  ago,  have  been  a  grievous  obstacle  in  its  path.' 

Differing  views  are  held  concerning  the  relations  of  science  and 
the  Bible.  Some  would  take  the  position  that  the  Bible,  being  an 
inspired  book,  should  test  all  scientific  facts  and  conclusions,  and 
that  we  should  distinctly  refuse  to  recognise  any  scientific  statement 
which  seems  opposed  to  the  plain  meaning  of  God's  Word.  But,  as 
the  exercise  of  men's  faculties  on  material  things  that  are  adjusted  to 
those  faculties,  science  should  be  perfectly  free  and  unfettered.  We 
need  ask  from  the  scientific  observer  no  more  than  competent  truth- 
fulness and  thoroughness.  We  will  decide  what  we  can  do  with  his 
facts  when  we  have  them  before  us  in  an  unquestionable  form.  We 
would  not,  if  we  could,  make  the  Bible  put  conditions  or  limitations 
on  the  scientific  man's  observations  and  researches.  If  he  is  honest, 
he  may  be  free. 

Some,  on  the  other  hand,  think  that  science  should  test  the  Bible, 
since  it  has  to  deal  with  facts.  But  it  is  found  that  the  man  who 
cultures  and  uses  the  senses  is  always  exposed  to  the  temptation  of 
bias  and  prejudice  against  the  Bible,  which  appeals  to  man's  moral 
and  emotional  nature,  which  the  man  of  sense  and  fact  readily 
despises.  The  science-man  is  over-quick  at  recognising  things  in 
the  Word  which  cannot  at  once  be  fitted  to  his  knowledge,  and  is 
impatient  with  the  cautious  friend  of  the  Bible  who  suggests  that 
possibly  even  science-facts  may  need  correction,  seeing  the  science- 
books  of  the  past  generation  are  practically  useless  for  the  science- 


MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE.  233 

students  of  this  time.  We  decline  the  interference  and  the  testing  of 
science  until,  round  her  entire  circle,  she  has  reached  irrefragable  con- 
clusions^ and  until  she  has  learned  sharply  and  satisfactorily  to  dis- 
tinguish between  her  facts  and  her  theories  about  her  facts.  If 
science  proposes  to  test  our  Bible,  we  simply  decline  her  competency 
for  any  such  undertaking. 

1  We  should,  as  Christians,  be  absolutely  fearless  of  all  accurate 
and  adequate  statements  of  facts  related  to  God's  world  of  the  seen. 
We  should  be  ready  to  listen,  receptively,  to  any  man  who  can  tell 
us  the  wonders  of  our  earth  and  heaven.  But  we  should  be  unwil- 
ling to  hear  any  scientific  man  explain  how  his  discoveries  disagree 
with  our  Bible.  We  simply  tell  him  to  keep  to  his  own  business, 
which  is  to  find  facts  and  construct  theories.  We  can  settle  for  our- 
selves how  the  seen  in  Nature  and  the  unseen  in  the  Bible — that  which 
is  apprehended  by  the  sense,  and  that  which  is  apprehended  by  the 
soul — are  in  the  eternal  harmony  of  the  One  Divine  and  Holy  Will ; 
or,  if  we  cannot  quite  see  now,  we  are  content  to  wait  awhile  for  the 
harmonizing.  We  refuse  to  argue  any  scientific  question  on  Bible 
grounds.' 

An  ever-increasing  number  of  thoughtful  persons  are  asking  whether 
we  have  been  right  in  our  method  of  associating  science  and  the 
Bible.  What  have  they  to  do  with  each  other?  Where  comes  in 
the  point  of  their  connection  ?  Is  it  not  quite  possible  that  both  the 
friends  of  science  and  the  friends  of  the  Bible  have  assumed — have 
perhaps  even  forced — relations  which  have  become  the  occasions  of 
needless  difficulty  ?  *  The  object  of  the  Bible  is  not  to  teach  science, 
but  moral  and  spiritual  truth.  Scientific  facts  and  truths  may  be  dis- 
covered by  the  intellect  and  industry  of  man,  and  hence  no  revela- 
tion of  them  is  needed.  But  our  origin  and  destiny,  our  relations  to 
God,  the  way  of  peace  and  purity,  'the  link  between  the  here  and  the 
hereafter — the  highest  wisdom  of  man  has  only  guessed  at  these 
things,  and  here  comes  the  need  that  God  shall  speak.' 

The  appeal  of  the  Bible  is  not,  primarily,  to  man  as  an  intellectual 
being,  but  as  a  moral  being.  A  Bible  for  the  scientific— if  one  had 
been  necessary — would  have  taken  scientific  form.  A  Bible  for  man 
as  a  moral  being  has  precise  adaptation  to  his  moral  condition  and 
necessities.  As  an  intellectual  book,  or  set  of  books,  the  Bible 
reflects  the  science-knowledge  of  the  age  which  each  of  its  books 
represents.  As  a  moral  book,  the  Bible  meets  the  enduring  condi- 
tions of  moral  being  in  every  age  and  clime. 

From  the  literary  point  of  view  it  is  unreasonable  to  expect,  in  any 
book,  absolute  accuracy  in  any  other  matters  than  those  which  belong 


234      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

strictly  to  the  main  subject  of  the  book.  '  In  history  any  matter  of 
science  touched  upon  would  be  only  casual,  and  whatever  scientific 
errors  or  inadvertencies  might  occur  would  not  impair  its  value  as  a 
narrative  of  facts.  So  a  treatise  on  mathematics  would  not  be  the 
less  trustworthy  as  a  guide  in  working  out  difficult  problems,  simply 
because  there  might  be  words  mis-spelled,  or  inaccurate  statements 
about  geography.'  Every  book  is  judged  by  its  main  purpose ;  all 
else  is  incidental.  No  book  was  ever  written  that  a  specialist,  in 
some  other  department  of  knowledge  than  that  dealt  with  in  the 
book,  could  not  find  fault  with.  But  we  never  would  allow  this  to 
subtract  from  the  value  of  the  book  to  us  within  its  own  proper  lines. 
In  our  great  national  classic,  Shakespeare's  poems,  there  are  some 
extraordinary  errors  in  botany  and  natural  history,  but  no  one  ever 
dreamed  of  undervaluing  Shakespeare  because  of  these  errors.  If 
the  Bible  is  found  to  be  trustworthy  and  efficient  on  its  own  moral 
and  religious  lines,  it  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference  that  it 
should  be  found  incorrect  on  matters  incidentally  introduced,  of 
which  it  does  not  pretend  to  treat. 

A  similar  conclusion  is  reached  by  treating  the  subject  historically. 
The  Bible  is  a  product  of  many  and  varying  ages.  Scientific  know- 
ledge had  its  birth-times,  and  its  growing  times,  in  those  ages.  At 
first  it  depended  on  imperfect  observation  ;  gradually  observation 
gained  some  kind  of  scientific  training ;  then  mere  observation  was 
aided  by  instruments,  and  the  modern  scientific  knowledge  is  almost 
wholly  the  product  of  the  telescope  and  the  microscope  and  the 
spectroscope,  used  according  to  the  Baconian  method.  Books 
written  before  the  invention  of  these  instruments,  and  before  the 
adoption  of  Bacon's  method,  would  have  been  unsuitable  to  their 
age,  unnatural,  out  of  harmony  with  current  opinion  and  sentiment, 
if  they  had  referred  in  any  way  to  such  things.  If  they  were  abreast 
of  the  best  knowledge  of  their  time,  we  are  fully  satisfied  with  them. 
All  we  can  reasonably  ask  of  any  book  is,  that  it  shall  be  true  to 
eternal  principles  of  righteousness  ;  and,  in  all  variable  questions,  all 
matters  in  which  there  can  be  growth  and  advance  in  knowledge,  that 
it  shall  be  in  line  with  the  current  opinion,  or  only  just  enough  in 
advance  of  it  to  lead  on  the  new  generation.  A  book  out  of  harmony 
with  its  age  would  be  ineffective  in  its  age ;  men  could  do  no  good 
with  it.  And  it  should  never  be  forgotten  that  the  Bible  had  its  first 
and  immediate  mission  to  those  persons  who  first  received  it,  book 
by  book ;  and  the  first  thing  we  should  require  to  recognise  is,  that  each 
book  was  strictly  adapted  to  the  apprehension,  and  to  the  capacity,  01 
those  who  first  received  it. 


MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE.  235 

This  may  readily  be  illustrated  by  the  poetical  and  figurative 
speech  of  our  Bible.  There  is  much  of  it  for  which  we  have  to 
make  meanings,  because  we  know  nothing  of  those  local  and  tem- 
porary circumstances  which  gave  point  to  the  figures  when  they  were 
written.  And  we  can  plainly  see  that  Bible  readers  of  the  olden 
time  would  have  been  able  to  make  nothing  of  their  Bible  if  its 
figures  had  been  taken  from  the  exact  science  of  these  Baconian 
days. 

It  is  important  that  we  should  observe  within  what  very  narrow 
limitations  scientific  matters  are  introduced  in  Scripture.  Apart  from 
the  apparently  precise  descriptions  of  the  Creation  and  the  Flood,  we 
have  no  authoritative  deliverance  about  any  question  as  to  which  man 
is  intellectually  competent  to  search  for  himself.  Side  allusions  there 
may  be,  casual  and  illustrative  references  there  may  be,  but  no  Bible 
writer  claims  Divine  authority  for  statements  he  may  make  that  are 
aside  of  his  Divine  commission.  Beyond  the  legendary  chapters  of 
Genesis,  which  demand  a  separate  and  distinct  treatment,  there  is  no 
scientific  statement  in  the  whole  Word  of  God  that  is  gravely  dis- 
putable, or  beyond  reasonable,  easy,  and  common-sense  explanation. 
When  we  have  ceased,  in  familiar  speech,  to  talk  of  the  '  sun-rising 
and  the  sun-setting,'  we  may  begin  to  complain  of  the  Bible  writers 
expressing  themselves  in  the  line  of  their  natural  observation  rather 
than  in  the  line  of  scientific  precision.  Sometimes  we  have  tried  to 
conceive  how  the  Bible  could  have  been  better  done,  so  as  to  accord 
with  this  nineteenth-century  science.  But  we  are  landed  at  once  in 
hopeless  difficulties.  Why  should  the  Bible  accord  with  nineteenth- 
century  science  rather  than  with  twelfth-century  science,  or  fourth- 
century  science,  or  twenty-fourth-century  science  ?  Why  should  it  be 
expected  to  fit  exactly  the  ideas  of  evolutionists  rather  than  the  ideas 
of  theurgists,  or  alchemists,  or  materialists  ?  If  the  Bible  had  come 
to  us  with  a  clear  nineteenth-century  science  stamp  upon  it,  its 
enemies  would  have  been  delighted  ;  they  would  have  gladly  pounced 
on  such  things,  and  loudly  declared  that  they  proved  the  Book  to  be 
a  deception,  for  they  showed  its  late  origin.  Such  things  could  not 
have  been  known  before  their  time. 

It  cannot  be  too  firmly  declared  that  the  Bible  bears  no  necessary 
relation  to  science.  It  leaves  it  alone,  and  asks  to  be  left  alone  by 
it.  The  Bible  is  this,  and  only  this — a  gracious  revelation  of  that 
which  man  supremely  needs  to  know,  as  a  responsible  moral  being, 
but  either  cannot  find  by  personal  and  independent  research,  or  is 
led,  by  his  sinfulness,  to  confuse  and  misrepresent.  Science  deals 
with  invariable  things,  of  which  man  is  only  able,  at  any  given  time, 


236      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

to  gain  a  variable  and  imperfect  apprehension.  The  Bible  deals  with 
invariable  things,  in  another  sphere,  of  which  man  had  invariable  and 
adequate  apprehension  from  the  first.  Moral  principles  were  re- 
vealed at  once,  and  the  Bible  deals  with  their  recovery  from  the 
confusion  into  which  man  has  put  them. 

Has  nineteenth-century  science  a  fair  claim  to  the  absolute  con- 
fidence it  demands  ?  Will  the  twentieth  century  find  no  corrections 
of  even  the  most  positive  conclusions  of  the  nineteenth  ?  The 
ancient  Egyptians  of  the  embalming  days  might  have  claimed 
absolute  certainty  for  their  facts.  So  might  Aristotle.  So  might  the 
Hindoo  philosophers.  In  spite  of  the  very  strong  assertions  made 
in  behalf  of  modern  science,  and  with  the  fullest  sympathy  in  all 
earnest  labour  for  the  enlargement  of  human  knowledge,  the  cautious 
man  will  hold  even  the  most  positive  conclusions  open  to  correction. 
He  will  say, — The  healthy  eye  is  the  only  eye  we  can  assume  to  have 
the  perfect  vision,  and  we  cannot  be  sure  that  every  scientific 
observer's  eye  is  healthy.  Men  find  out  their  facts  by  the  aid  of 
instruments,  and  no  absolutely  perfect  instrument  ever  yet  came  from 
human  hands.  No  instrument  was  ever  yet  made  which  could  not 
be  improved.  And  if  we  have  now  conclusions  reached  by  instru- 
ments which  multiply  a  thousand  times,  how  can  we  be  sure  that 
there  will  be  no  corrections  of  those  observations  and  conclusions 
when  the  instruments  multiply  ten  thousand  times  ?  Scientific  men 
must  be  men  of  faith  and  imagination,  as  well  as  of  observation. 
They  must  trust,  and  work  on  the  basis  of,  each  other's  conclusions. 
They  must,  inventively,  try  to  find  out  what  the  things  they  see  are 
like  ;  and  so  the  elements  of  uncertainty  are  always  present.  Those 
they  trust  may  not  be  faithful  or  competent.  And  they  have  no 
ground  for  positive  assertion  until  they  have  not  only  shown  what 
things  are  like,  but  also  that  they  are  like  those  things,  and  nothing 
else. 

If  we  think  precisely,  we  shall  be  disposed  to  say  that  certainty 
belongs  alone  to  morals ;  and  the  results  of  human  observation  can 
only  be  in  measure  true,  true  to  date,  true  to  capacity,  true  to  the 
instruments  of  inquiry.  It  is  only  the  '  Word  of  God  that  abideth 
for  ever.' 

It  may  be  helpful  to  give  some  passages  from  modern  Christian 
writers  which  may  be  regarded  as  supporting  the  general  views  to 
which  expression  has  been  given. 

Professor  Drummond  says  of  the  record  of  creation  :  '  What  we 
have  to  note  is  that  a  scientific  theory  of  the  universe  formed  no  part 


MATTERS  OF  SCIENCE.  237 

)f  the  original  writer's  intention.  Dating  from  the  childhood  of  the 
vorld,  written  for  children,  and  for  that  child-spirit  in  man  which 
•emains  unchanged  by  time,  it  takes  colour  and  shape  accordingly, 
fts  object  is  purely  religious,  the  point  being,  not  how  certain  things 
A^ere  made,  but  that  God  made  them.  It  is  not  dedicated  to  science, 
3Ut  to  the  soul.  It  is  a  sublime  theology,  given  in  view  of  ignorance, 
Dr  idolatory,  or  polytheism,  telling  the  worshipful  youth  of  the  world 
that  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  every  creeping  and  flying  thing, 
were  made  by  God.' 

Professor  Agar  Beet  says  :  '  We  have  no  reason  to  expect  that 
this  record  would  contain  anticipations  of  the  discoveries  of  modern 
science  ;  and  if  not,  its  writers  could  hardly  avoid  using  here  and 
there  forms  of  speech  contradicting  these  later  discoveries.' 

Professor  Jowett  points  out  that  '  what  is  progressive  is  necessarily 
imperfect  in  its  earlier  stages,  and  even  erring  to  those  who  come 
after,  whether  it  be  the  maxims  of  a  half-civilised  world  which  are 
compared  with  those  of  a  civilised  one,  or  the  Law  with  the  Gospel.' 
*  Any  true  doctrine  of  inspiration  must  conform  to  all  well-ascertained 
facts  of  history  or  of  science.  The  same  fact  cannot  be  true  and 
untrue,  any  more  than  the  same  words  can  have  two  opposite 
meanings.  The  same  fact  cannot  be  true  in  religion  when  seen  by 
the  light  of  faith,  and  untrue  in  science  when  looked  at  through  the 
medium  of  evidence  or  experiment.  It  is  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
the  sun  goes  round  the  earth  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  earth 
goes  round  the  sun ;  or  that  the  world  appears  to  have  existed,  but 
has  not  existed,  during  the  vast  epochs  of  which  geology  speaks  to 
us.  But  if  so,  there  is  no  need  of  elaborate  reconcilements  of 
revelation  and  science ;  they  reconcile  themselves  the  moment  any 
scientific  truth  is  distinctly  ascertained.  As  the  idea  of  nature 
enlarges,  the  idea  of  revelation  also  enlarges  ;  it  was  a  temporary 
misunderstanding  which  severed  them.' 

Dr.  Monro  Gibson,  in  a  popular  address,  said :  {  When  things  in 
Nature  are  referred  to  in  the  Bible,  it  is  in  language  which  the  people 
of  the  time  could  understand.  There  was  no  attempt  to  speak  over 
the  little  heads  of  the  people  of  the  time  to  the  big  folks  that  live  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  represent  its  glorious  culture.  The  Bible 
speaks  about  Nature  in  a  natural  way — in  a  way  that  would  be  natural 
to  the  people  of  the  time ;  and  that  is  what  all  sensible  people  do, 
and  that  is  what  all  sensible  people  approve — except  when  they  are 
very  badly  off  for  something  to  say  against  the  Bible.  There  is  no 
pedantry  in  the  Bible;  no  affectation  of  scientific  accuracy;  no 
attempt  to  anticipate  modern  discoveries.' 


238      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Professor  W.  Griffiths  sums  up  a  discussion  of  the  relations 
between  science  and  the  Bible  in  these  words :  *  At  present  the 
precise  relations  of  the  Bible  to  science  cannot  be  definitely  fixed ; 
for,  on  each  side,  the  exploration  of  their  joint  ground  is  still  going 
on ;  and  the  investigation  that  has  already  yielded  unexpected 
harmonies,  which  strengthen  the  proofs  of  revelation,  will  probably 
greet  us  again  with  surprises  of  a  similar  nature  and  power.  More 
points  of  agreement  will  doubtless  appear,  when  the  learned  have 
thoroughly  sifted  all  particulars  common  to  the  two  Divine  Records ; 
which  hope  holds  out  the  prospect  of  a  new  chapter  of  Christian 
Evidence  to  be  compiled  in  the  future.' 


GENERAL  NOTE  ON  HEBREW  SCIENCE. 

The  Hebrews  were  in  no  sense  a  scientific  people.  They  had  no 
special  interest  either  in  the  arts  or  the  sciences.  Their  genius  lay 
in  their  power  to  discern  the  Divine  relation  to  things.  Things,  by 
themselves,  were  not  important  in  their  eyes ;  they  did  not  care  to 
study  them.  The  mystery  they  loved  to  search  out  was  the  working 
of  God  in  and  through  them.  In  a  good  sense  they  were  in  the 
wonder-stages  of  national  childhood,  and  found  God  in  Nature,  God 
in  providence,  God  in  history,  God  in  relationships,  even  as  they 
apprehended  God  in  His  tabernacle  and  temple.  They  were  not 
inquisitive ;  there  was  no  thirst  for  Nature  knowledge.  The  Jew- 
boy's  text-book  was  the  Bible,  and  his  first  lessons  were  learned  from 
Leviticus.  The  highest  reaches  of  Jewish  learning  kept  well  within 
moral  lines.  The  heathen  might  be  astronomers  and  astrologers  and 
variously  wise  in  the  things  of  a  material  world ;  but  the  Jew — even 
the  most  enlightened  Rabbi — was  but  a  casuist  in  the  application  of 
moral  rules.  He  did  not  mind  adding  to  the  law  of  God  ;  he  thought 
of  it  as  unfolding  the  applications  of  the  law  of  God,  but  he  regarded 
it  as  unworthy  and  wrong  to  venture  beyond  the  strict  limitations  of 
the  Revealed  Word. 

The  science  of  the  day  was  enough  even  for  the  intelligent  and 
educated  Jew.  He  accepted  it,  he  used  it ;  he  never  thought  of 
criticizing  it,  or  of  improving  it.  And  when  he  wrote  books  on  his 
proper  moral  lines,  he  put  in  the  commonplace  scientific  ideas  of  his 
day  if  he  happened  to  need  them  for  illustrative  purposes.  We  have, 
therefore,  in  the  books  of  the  Bible,  just  the  marked  and  character- 
istic features  of  Jewish  literature. 


GENERAL  NOTE  ON  HEBREW  SCIENCE.       239 

No  doubt  the  period  of  Solomon  was  marked  by  that  attention  to 
natural  science  which  is  the  common  feature  of  swiftly-advancing 
civilization.  But  it  was  quite  a  temporary  and  passing  feature. 
There  is  no  indication  whatever  that  it  was  maintained.  It  was  the 
personal  influence  of  a  man  of  genius,  and  it  took  no  permanent  root 
in  Jewish  soil.  There  is  no  Jewish  system  of  astronomy,  or  mathe- 
matics, or  natural  history,  or  chemistry,  or  medicine.  There  is  not 
even  any  Jewish  system  of  philosophy.  In  a  scientific  sense, 
there  is  no  attempt  at  constructing  a  theology.  What  we  under- 
stand by  science  is  wholly  foreign  to  the  natural  genius  of  the 
Hebrew. 

Dean  Stanley  says  all  that  can  be  said  of  the  Solomonic  science, 
and  it  is  but  very  little  that  he  can  say  :  '  Solomon  was,  at  least  in 
one  extensive  branch,  the  founder,  the  representative,  not  merely  of 
Hebrew  wisdom,  but  of  Hebrew  science.  As  Alexander's  conquests 
had  supplied  the  materials  for  the  first  natural  history  of  Greece,  so 
Solomon's  commerce  did  the  like  for  the  first  natural  history  of  Israel. 
"  He  spake  of  trees,"  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  "  from  the 
spreading  cedar-tree  of  Lebanon  to  the  slender  caper-plant  that 
springs  out  of  the  crevice  of  the  wall.  He  spake  also  of  beasts,  and 
of  fowls,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of  fishes."  We  must  look  at  him 
as  the  first  great  naturalist  of  the  world,  in  the  midst  of  the  strange 
animals — the  apes,  the  peacocks — which  he  had  collected  from 
India  ;  in  the  gardens,  among  the  copious  springs  of  Etham,  or  in 
the  bed  of  the  deep  ravine  beneath  the  wall  of  his  newly-erected 
temple,  where,  doubtless,  was  to  be  seen  the  transplanted  cedar, 
superseding  the  humble  sycamore  of  Palestine — the  "  paradise  of 
rare  plants,  gathered  from  ftir  and  near — pomegranates,  with  pleasant 
fruits  ;  camphire  with  spikenard,  spikenard  and  saffron,  calamus  and 
cinnamon  with  all  trees  of  frankincense  ;  myrrh  and  aloes,  with  all 
their  chief  spices."  Of  his  science  the  sacred  writings  tell  enough  to 
show  us  that,  in  pursuing  this  great  study,  we  are  his  true  followers ; 
that  the  geologist,  the  astronomer,  but  especially  the  botanist  and  the 
naturalist,  may  claim  him  as  their  first  professor.' 

But  Stanley  significantly  adds  :  '  If  the  object  of  revelation  had 
been  to  teach  us  the  wonders  of  the  natural  creation,  to  anticipate 
Linnaeus  and  Cuvier,  here  was  the  time,  here  was  the  occasion,  here 
were  the  works  on  Hebrew  science  ready  to  be  enrolled  at  once  in 
the  canon  of  Scripture.  But  not  so.  They  have  passed  away.  We 
have  the  advantage  of  Solomon's  example,  but  we  have  not  the  ad- 
vantage, or,  it  may  be,  the  disadvantage,  of  his  speculations  and  his 
discoveries.'  And  in  truth  there  was  in  Solomon's  science  more  casual 


24o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

observation  than  precise  research,  and  more  magic  than  knowledge. 
The  school-child  of  to-day  knows  more  and  better  than  wise  Solomon 
of  old,  and  at  least  knows  this,  that  it  would  be  folly  to  make  even 
wise  Solomon  a  teacher  in  natural  studies. 

Home  remarks  that  'the  Hebrews  made  but  little  progress  in 
science  and  literature  after  the  time  of  Solomon.'  '  Astronomy  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  much  cultivated  by  the  Hebrews  ;  the  laws 
of  Moses,  indeed,  by  no  means  favoured  this  science,  as  the  neigh- 
bouring heathen  nations  worshipped  the  host  of  heaven ;  hence  the 
sacred  writers  rarely  mention  any  of  the  constellations  by  name.' 
'  The  study  of  astrology,  which  was  intimately  connected  with  that  of 
astronomy,  and  was  very  highly  estimated  among  the  neighbouring 
nations,  was  interdicted  to  the  Hebrews.'  (Deut.  xviii.  10;  Lev. 
xx.  27). 

Dr.  E.  Stapfer  considers  with  care  the  leading  scientific  notions 
of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  compels  us  to  be  thankful 
that  the  Bible  in  no  way  sets  its  seal  upon  the  crude  notions  then 
entertained.  He  makes  us  quite  glad  that  the  Bible  is,  in  no  sense 
whatever,  a  scientific  book.  '  The  Jews  of  the  time  of  Christ  gave 
the  name  of  science  to  the  study  of  the  law,  and  the  more  or  less 
philosophical  speculations  connected  with  it.  The  Christians,  who 
devoted  themselves  from  the  first  century  to  the  metaphysical  con- 
templation of  Divine  things,  gave  to  this  study  also  the  name  of 
science  (gtwsis).  We  ask,  what  were  the  scientific  acquirements  of 
an  educated  man  in  Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ  ?  Did  he  know 
arithmetic  ?  Did  he  know  anything  of  natural  history  ?  What  were 
his  ideas  of  astronomy?  of  geography?  Of  arithmetic  we  can  say 
nothing ;  it  is  barely  alluded  to  in  the  Old  Testament.  Natural 
history,  or  at  least  zoology,  seems  to  have  been  cultivated  to  some 
extent,  for  the  descriptions  of  animals  and  of  their  habits  often  occur 
in  the  sacred  writings.  But  there  are  only  very  primitive  attempts  at 
classification.  About  the  cosmic  system  the  Jews  had  broader 
notions,  though  scarcely  more  precise.  They  had  a  great  idea  of  the 
vastness  of  the  universe.  "  It  would  take  500  years,"  we  read  in  the 
tract  "  Beracoth,"  "  to  traverse  the  distance  between  the  earth  and 
the  sky  immediately  overhead.  The  same  interval  separates  one 
heaven  from  another,  and  again  there  is  the  same  distance  between 
the  two  extremities  of  the  heaven  traversed  in  its  breadth."  As  to 
the  stars,  they  gave  names  to  certain  constellations ;  Orion,  the  Great 
Bear,  and  others,  are  spoken  of  in  the  Book  of  Job.  It  must  be 
noted  also  that  the  word  "  Rakia "  in  Genesis,  which  we  translate 
firmament,  properly  signifies  solid  surface,  and  the  Jews  imagined  the 


GENERAL  NOTE  ON  HEBRE  W  SCIENCE.       241 

blue  of  the  sky  to  be  solid.  When  it  rained,  they  thought  the  water 
passed  through  holes  pierced  in  this  surface.  These  openings  are 
the  "windows  of  heaven,"  or  the  "fountains  of  the  deep."  The 
earth  was  to  them,  as  to  the  whole  ancient  world,  the  centre  of  the 
universe,  and  all  the  stars  revolved  around  that  immovable  plane. 
The  Jew  looked  upon  the  earth  as  a  circular  plane.  God  is  seated 
above  this  plane,  the  circumference  of  which  had  been  originally 
traced  by  Him  on  the  abyss.  The  four  cardinal  points  are  called 
the  ends  of  the  heavens,  the  four  sides  or  corners  of  the  earth,  or 
the  four  winds.  Jerusalem  is  the  centre  of  the  round  flat  disc  which 
forms  the  earth ;  at  the  edge  of  the  disc  is  the  sea,  the  great  sea 
upon  which  no  one  had  yet  ventured  far.  Their  science  had  no 
surer  basis  than  the  direct  testimony  of  the  senses  and  childish 
observation.' 

One  thing  is  perfectly  clear.  The  use  of  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
through  long  ages,  did  not  correct  commonly  received  errors  in  rela- 
tion to  scientific  matters,  and  we  are  therefore  fully  entitled  to  say 
that  those  Scriptures  bore  no  mission  in  relation  to  such  matters.  It 
is  the  inspired  book  of  morals  and  religion,  and  its  scientific  allusions 
are  accidental  and  illustrative. 


GENERAL  NOTE  ON  SCIENTIFIC  FACT  AND 
SCIENTIFIC  THEORY. 

The  absolutely  necessary  faculty  of  the  scientific  man  is  the  power 
of  precise  and  persistent  observation,  which  is,  primarily,  a  sense- 
faculty.  But  along  with  this  should  go  two  other  powers,  that  which 
comes  out  of  competency  of  general  knowledge ;  and  the  ability  to 
generalize,  and  construct  theories.  But  it  is  usually  found  that  the 
culture  of  the  strictly  observant  faculties  tends  to  weaken  and  limit 
the  theorizing  faculty ;  so  we  learn  to  look  to  one  set  of  men  for 
facts,  and  to  another  set  of  men  for  theories.  Or  to  put  the  same 
thing  in  another  form,  the  scientist  and  the  philosopher  are  seldom 
found  united  in  the  same  person. 

Another  consideration  demands  our  attention.  Theories  are  per- 
petually being  constructed  on  incomplete  foundations  of  facts.  And, 
indeed,  from  this  point  of  view,  all  theories  must  be  regarded  as 
tentative  only,  because,  if  even  we  can  fairly  say  that  an  array  of 
facts  is  adequate  for  our  purpose,  we  can  never  say  that  it  is  complete, 
And  the  additions  which  may  be  made  to  our  facts  may  wholly 
subvert  the  theory.  Theories  are  constantly  being  relegated  to  the 
limbo  of  curiosities,  in  consequence  of  new  facts  being  discovered,  as 

16 


242      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

may  be  efficiently  illustrated  in  relation  to  the  science  of  medicine. 
The  observation  of  microbes  is  creating  entirely  new  theories  of 
disease,  and  its  necessary  treatment. 

It  will  be  found  that  the  Scriptures  are  never  out  of  harmony  with 
any  fact  of  nature  that  science  can  competently  observe,  and  faith- 
fully describe.  And  the  challenge  has  been  made, — but  has  never 
been  met, — state  simply  some  unquestionable,  some  universally 
recognised  fact,  which  is  at  variance  with  Bible  statements,  when 
common-sense,  and  intellectual  fairness,  are  allowed  to  present  those 
statements.  We  are  not  bound  by  any  law,  human  or  Divine,  to 
attempt  to  square  our  Scriptures  with  tentative  and  uncertain  human 
theories.  Much  has  indeed  been  made  of  the  modern  theory  of 
Evolution.  We  are  not  bound  to  fit  our  Bible  to  it,  because  it  has 
not  yet  a  complete  set  of  facts  on  which  it  can  be  based ;  and  it  does 
not  fairly  and  fully  account  for  all  the  facts  it  has.  No  theory  can  be 
more  than  a  working  theory.  None  can  be  beyond  the  possibility  of 
correction  while  there  are  any  facts  of  nature  still  unobserved. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  '  if  there  be  certainty  in  science,  it  can 
only  attach  to  the  facts,  not  to  men's  theories  about  the  facts,  for  these 
must  carry  with  them  the  uncertainty  that  ever  attaches  to  man-made 
theories,  whatever  their  subject  may  be.  Darwin  may  give  us  the 
facts  he  has  carefully  observed,  and  we  receive  them  with  confidence ; 
but  Darwin's  theories  of  evolution,  based  upon  these  facts,  are  open 
to  discussion  and  doubt.  Yet  we  often  find  that  scientific  men  are 
more  anxious  about  the  theories  than  about  the  facts  ;  and  the  very 
same  facts  are  made  the  bases  of  altogether  differing  theories.' 

Professor  W.  Griffiths  deals  skilfully  with  this  distinction.  *  We 
should  here,  as  in  all  subjects  of  inquiry,  distinguish  between  know- 
ledge and  mere  speculation.  Many  of  the  pretentious  theories,  by 
which  revelation  is  assailed,  have  scarcely  a  shadow  of  proof  to  bear 
them  out.  Sheer  conjectures  are  thrust  in  the  face  of  the  religious 
public,  with  an  assurance  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  evidence  that 
can  be  advanced  in  their  favour.  If  Christians  pay  prompt  heed  to 
every  alarm  bawled  out  in  the  name  of  science,  their  chronic  state 
will  be  one  of  panic.  Better,  by  far,  wait  to  learn  whether  the  report 
be  not  the  windy  effusion  of  some  puffed-up  imagination.  Why 
echo  what  will  soon  die  if  not  repeated  ?  And  the  hollowness  of 
flimsy  surmises  which  do  not  at  once  collapse  must  ere  long  be 
exposed  by  men  of  science  themselves,  the  weak  inferences  of  one 
student  of  nature  being  set  aside  by  the  sound  inductions  of  another. 
The  logical  faculty  in  many  scientists  is  sadly  defective.  They  are 
little  more  than  collectors  of  facts.  They  know  not  how  to  marshal 


ANCIENT  ASTRONOMY.  243 

and  vitalize  their  observations,  that  facts  may  become  that  sort  of 
organic  structure,  a  living  argument.  Yet  persons,  so  wanting  in  the 
philosophic  quality,  are  very  fond  of  hypotheses,  and  mistake  guesses 
for  oracles,  and  rude  materials,  out  of  which  knowledge  may  some 
day  be  formed,  for  knowledge  itself.  The  defender  of  the  Faith  will 
do  well  to  leave  these  erratic  savants  in  the  hands  of  their  brethren ; 
who,  by  fighting  their  own  battles,  often  unwittingly  protect  the 
orthodox  creed.' 


SUB-SECTION. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  ASTRONOMY,  ASTROLOGY, 
AND  MAGIC. 


Ancient  Astronomy. 

JOB  ix.  7-9 :  '  Which  commandeth  the  sun,  and  it  riseth  not ;  and  sealeth  up  the 
stars.  Which  alone  spreadeth  out  the  heavens,  and  treadeth  upon  the  waves  of 
the  sea.  Which  maketh  Arcturus,  Orion,  and  Pleiades,  and  the  chambers  of  the 
south.' 

Difficulty. — Naming  the  constellations  is  indicative  of  an  advanced 
condition  of  astronomy,  and  suggests  a  late  date  for  the  Book  of  Job. 

Explanation. — It  must  be  admitted  that  the  Hebrews  had  no 
astronomical  or  astrological  system  through  their  early  history,  if  they 
ever  had.  It  is  most  unlikely  that  they  would  have  special  names 
for  the  constellations  during  their  tribal  age ;  and  only  the  contact 
with  foreign  lands  and  people,  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  provided  the 
possibility  of  such  scientific  knowledge.  If  Job's  career  is  fixed  for 
a  period  before  Abraham,  it  would  appear  an  anachronism  to  associate 
with  him  the  advanced  ideas  of  the  later  Solomonic  age. 

The  names  given  to  the  constellations  in  Job  are  still  retained,  but 
they  come  to  us  through  the  Greek  translation  of  them  ;  and  it  is  not 
absolutely  certain  that  the  Hebrew  terms  are  precisely  rendered. 
Comparing  the  verse  above  with  Job  xxxviii.  31,  32,  we  find  four 
terms — cimah,  cestl,  'ash,  mazzaroth.  Of  these  the  Hebrew  form, 
mazzaroth,  has  been  retained,  though  the  Latin  translates  it  Luciferum, 
and  the  French  '  les  signes  du  Zodiaque? 

The  other  three  terms  present  difficulty.  There  is  great  proba- 
bility that  the  constellation  known  to  the  Hebrews  as  cesil  is  the  same 
as  that  which  the  Greeks  called  Orion,  and  the  Arabs  the  Giant. 
The  giant  of  Oriental  astronomy  was  Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter, 

16— 2 


244      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

who  was  fabled  to  have  been  bound  in  the  sky  for  his  impiety.  The 
word  cestl  means  a  fool,  or  an  impious,  godless  man  ;  and  later  inven- 
tion made  the  term  descriptive  of  Nimrod,  who  was  regarded  as  a 
rebel  against  God,  and  was  called  by  the  Arabs  'the  mocker.' 

Cimah  is  the  Hebrew  word  rendered  'the  Pleiades'  (called  in  Amos 
v.  8,  *  the  seven  stars ').  The  Rabbis  speak  of  this  as  a  collection  of 
stars  called  in  Arabic  Al  Thuraiya.  Aben  Ragel  says,  '  Al  Thuraiya 
is  the  mansion  of  the  moon,  in  the  sign  Taurus,  and  it  is  called  the 
celestial  hen  with  her  chickens.'  The  identification  with  what  we 
know  as  the  Pleiades  is  regarded  as  fully  justified. 

'Ash  is  represented  by  Arcturus,  the  constellation  called  'the  Bear.' 
The  Hebrew  name  is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
Chaldaeans,  but  the  exact  meaning  of  it  is  uncertain. 

The  Solomonic  origin  of  the  Book  of  Job  is  argued  from  many 
other  and  more  important  considerations  than  this  ;  but  if  that  later 
date  be  admitted  on  other  grounds,  it  suggests  an  easy  and  reasonable 
explanation  of  such  an  advanced  astronomical  reference  as  is  found 
in  these  verses.  The  Speaker's  Commentary  gives  a  qualified  approval 
to  the  suggestion  of  a  late  authorship.  '  The  supposition  that  we 
owe  the  book  in  its  actual  form  to  a  writer  of  the  Solomonian  period 
has  much  in  its  favour;  assuming,  that  is,  that  he  used  copious 
materials,  existing  in  a  dialect  so  nearly  allied  to  the  Hebrew  as  to 
require  little  more  than  occasional  glosses,  and  some  revision  of 
grammatical  forms  and  construction.  This  hypothesis  meets,  in  fact, 
many  difficulties.' 

Light  before  the  Sun. 

GENESIS  i.  3,  14  :  *  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light  ;  and  there  was  light. 
And  God  said.  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven,  to  divide  the 
day  from  the  night.' 

Difficulty.  —  We  trace  all  light  to  the  sun,  and  cannot  conceive  of 
light  existing  before,  or  independently  of,  the  sun. 

Explanation. — This  is  a  notion  which  has  no  better  basis  than 
natural  observation  and  commonly -received  opinion.  Science 
corrects  it,  and  reveals  other  lights  independent  of  our  sun.  The 
'  fixed  stars,'  as  they  are  called,  stand  related  to  other  suns  than  ours, 
and  cannot  be  said  to  depend  on  it  for  their  light ;  though  it  might 
fairly  be  suggested  that  no  light  is  apprehensible  by  our  senses  which 
does  not  come  through,  and  is  not  affected  by,  the  atmosphere  in 
which  our  sun  rules,  so  that  what  we  can  see  is  always  toned  by  our 
sun. 

But  we  may  be  pressing  the  language  of  the  early  legendary  record 


LIGHT  BEFORE  THE  SUN.  245 

too  hard  if  we  make  the  order  of  the  days  absolutely  describe  the 
processes  of  creation.  Poetry  knows  no  restraint  of  logic,  and  will 
set  things  in  separate  scenes  which,  in  fact,  are  continuous  and  over- 
lapping processes.  Imagination  can  conceive  light  existing  before  it 
is  focussed  in  the  sun,  and  set  in  relations  with  one  particular  system. 
And  in  the  account  of  creation  there  is  no  assertion  of  the  existence 
of  light  before  the  sun ;  properly  treated  the  record  declares  two 
things:  (i)  It  was  God  who  made  the  light.  (2)  It  was  God  who 
set  the  light  in  its  place  of  rule  for  the  earthly  day  and  night.  God's 
relation  to  all  the  notions  of  light  we  can  have  is  the  Mosaic  assertion; 
and  only  through  the  discoveries  of  modern  science  could  anyone  have 
dreamed  of  making  Moses  assert  that  light  existed  before  the  sun. 

The  early  legends  of  nations  are  poetical  in  form,  and  conse- 
quently can  be  variously  read  and  translated  according  to  the  know- 
ledge of  each  generation.  And  we  are  constantly  falling  into  the 
error  of  thinking  that  things  were  actually  designed  in  the  legend, 
because  we  can  make  the  language  fit  with  what  we  have  discovered. 
It  is  both  wiser  and  safer  to  take  the  firm  position,  that  the  legends 
of  Creation  were  not  preserved  in  order  to  teach  us  the  processes,  or 
the  order  of  the  incidents,  of  the  Creation,  but  to  declare,  in  the  most 
absolute  and  exclusive  manner,  the  relation  of  the  one  God  to  every- 
thing that  exists.  The  order  of  the  days  in  the  legend  is  poetical,  not 
logical.  '  The  use  of  the  term  "day"  to  denote  a  prolonged  period  adds 
to  the  dramatic  liveliness  with  which  the  Creator's  task  is  described.' 

Hugh  Miller  makes  a  suggestion  which  certainly  deserves  a  careful 
consideration  ('Testimony  of  Rocks,'  p.  134):  'Let  me,  however, 
pause  for  a  moment  to  remark  the  peculiar  character  of  the  language 
in  which  we  are  first  introduced,  in  the  Mosaic  narrative,  to  the 
heavenly  bodies — sun,  moon,  and  stars.  The  moon,  though  abso- 
lutely one  of  the  smaller  lights  of  our  system,  is  described  as  secondary 
and  subordinate  to  only  its  greatest  light,  the  sun.'  [Miller  might 
have  added  that  the  account  gives  no  hint  of  the  fact  that  the  light 
of  the  moon  is  absolutely  dependent  on  that  of  the  sun — a  fact  which 
the  mere  observer  could  never  have  found  out,  or  even  suspected.] 
4  It  is  the  apparent,  then,  not  the  actual,  which  we  find  in  the  passage 
— what  seemed  to  be,  not  what  was ;  and  as  it  was  merely  what 
appeared  to  be  greatest  that  was  described  as  greatest,  on  what 
grounds  are  we  to  hold  that  it  may  not  also  have  been  what  appeared 
at  the  time  to  be  made  that  has  been  described  as  made  ?  The  sun, 
moon,  and  stars  may  have  been  created  long  before,  though  it  was 
not  until  the  fourth  day  of  creation  that  they  became  visible  from  the 
earth's  surface.' 


246      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

C.  W.  Goodwin,  criticising  this  suggestion,  says  :  *  The  theory 
founded  upon  this  hint  is  that  the  Hebrew  writer  did  not  state  facts 
(as  we  understand  the  term,  verifiable,  scientific  facts),  but  merely 
certain  appearances,  and  those  not  of  things  which  really  happened, 
but  of  certain  occurrences  which  were  presented  to  him  in  a  vision, 
and  that  this  vision  greatly  deceived  him  as  to  what  he  seemed  to 
see;  and  thus,  in  effect,  the  real  discrepancy  of  the  narrative  with 
facts  is  admitted.  He  had,  in  all,  seven  visions,  to  each  of  which  he 
attributed  the  duration  of  a  day,  although,  indeed,  each  picture  pre- 
sented to  him  the  earth  during  seven  long,  and  distinctly  marked, 
periods.' 

Bishop  Wordsworth  observes  :  '  It  is  not  said  that  Light  was  now 
made,  verse  3,  as  it  is  said  that  God  made  two  great  Lights,  or  rather 
light-holders,  in  verse  14.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  Light  did  not 
exist  before  this  act  of  God.  We  need  not  be  surprised  that  fossil 
animals,  which  have  been  disinterred  from  the  earth,  should  have 
had  eyes,  although  they  existed  before  these  words  were  uttered,  and 
before  the  creation  (?)  of  the  sun  ;  for  Moses  is  here  describing  a 
glorious  revealing  of  Light,  triumphing  over  the  Darkness  which  had 
usurped  its  place.  The  earth  existed  as  the  wreck  of  an  anterior 
creation,  but  strangely  convulsed  and  fractured,  submerged  in  water 
and  shrouded  in  darkness.  But  when  God  saw  fit  to  commence  the 
new  creation,  and  prepare  the  desolate  earth  for  the  abode  of  Man, 
the  barrier,  which  shut  out  the  Light,  was  removed  by  the  Word  of 
God,  and  Light  broke  in  upon  the  waters.  In  the  original  Hebrew, 
Light  is  Or  ;  but  the  Sun  is  called  Maor,  a  receptacle  and  vehicle  of 
light' 

Duns  says  :  '  Geology  opens  up  to  us  world  on  world  successively 
stocked  by  abounding  forms  of  animal  life,  and  of  vegetation,  for 
which  sunlight  was  as  necessary  as  it  is  for  those  of  the  Adamic 
epoch.  There  is  thus  no  way  of  avoiding  the  inference  that  the  orbs 
of  heaven  existed  in  all  their  beauty,  and  brightness,  and  strength, 
then  as  now.  And,  consequently,  that  the  words  descriptive  of 
the  fourth  day  point  to  adaptation,  and  not  to  creation  properly 
so  called.' 

The  common-sense  and  reasonable  explanation  given  by  Kitto  may 
be  taken  as  summarising  the  points  to  which  our  attention  should  be 
directed.  'The  greatest  apparent  difficulty  in  the  history  of  the 
creation  arises  from  the  production  of  light  on  the  first  day ;  whereas, 
in  the  sequel  of  the  narrative,  the  creation  of  the  sun  and  moon  seems 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  fourth  day.  Geology,  which  was  at  first  regarded 
as  increasing  the  difficulties  of  a  solution,  may  now  claim  the  credit 


LIGHT  BEFORE  THE  SUN.  247 

of  having  pointed  out  the  true  sense  in  which  these  intimations  are  to 
be  received.  If  we  admit  that  the  earth  existed,  and  was  replenished 
with  successions  of  animal  and  vegetable  life,  before  the  whole  was 
reduced  to  that  chaotic  confusion  in  which  we  find  it  before  the  work 
of  reorganization  commenced,  we  must  allow  also  that  the  light  of  the 
sun  shone  upon  it  in  those  more  ancient  times.  It  appears  by  the 
fossil  remains  of  those  creatures  which  then  walked  the  earth,  but 
whose  races  were  extinguished  before  man  appeared,  that  they  were 
furnished  with  eyes  as  perfect  and  wonderful  in  their  structure  as 
those  of  our  present  animals,  and  these  eyes  would,  without  light, 
have  been  useless ;  and  the  vegetable  productions  which  are  always 
found  in  connection  with  these  animals  could  not  without  light  have 
flourished.  Besides,  the  changes  of  day  and  night,  which  are 
described  as  existing  before  the  fourth  day,  could  not  have  existed 
without  the  sun,  seeing  that  they  depend  on  the  earth's  relation  to 
that  luminary.  Geology  concurs  with  Scripture  in  declaring  the 
existence  of  the  watery  chaos  previously  to  the  era  in  which  man  and 
his  contemporary  animals  received  their  being.  The  earth  then 
existed  as  the  wreck  of  an  anterior  creation,  with  all  its  previous  and 
interim  geological  arrangements  and  fossil  remains ;  but  strangely 
convulsed  and  fractured,  submerged  in  water,  and  enshrouded  in 
darkness.  Thus  it  lay,  probably  for  an  immense  period  :  life  was 
extinct ;  but  matter  continued  subject  to  the  same  laws  with  which  it 
had  been  originally  endowed.  The  same  attraction,  the  same  repul- 
sion, the  same  combination  of  forces,  which,  by  the  will  of  God,  have 
ever  been  inherent  in  it,  still  existed.  The  sun,  then,  acting  by  its 
usual  laws  upon  so  vast  a  body  of  waters,  gradually,  in  the  continuous 
lapse  of  ages,  drew  up  a  prodigious  mass  of  dense  and  dark  vapours, 
which,  held  suspended  in  the  atmosphere,  threw  a  pall  of  blackest 
night  around  the  globe.  All  things  beneath  it  became  invisible,  and 
no  ray  of  light  could  pierce  the  thick  canopy  of  darkness.  Layer 
upon  layer,  in  almost  infinite  succession  of  closely-packed  and  darkling 
clouds,  filled  the  atmosphere,  and  absorbed  every  particle  of  light 
long  before  it  could  reach  the  surface  of  the  earth ;  and  in  the  fullest 
extent  was  the  language  of  Scripture  justified,  that  '  darkness  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  deep.' 

But  when  God  saw  fit,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  to  commence  the  new 
creation,  and  prepare  the  desolate  earth  for  the  abode  of  man,  this  dense 
barrier,  which  shut  out  the  light,  began  at  His  high  word  to  disperse, 
precipitate,  or  break  up,  and  to  let  in  light  upon  the  waters.  It  was 
not  likely  to  be,  nor  was  it  necessary  to  be,  a  sudden  change  from  the 
depth  of  utter  darkness  to  the  blaze  of  sunny  day,  but  the  letting  in 


248     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  light  without  sunshine,  the  source  of  this  light — the  body  of  the 
sun — not  becoming  visible  until  the  fourth  day,  when  its  full  glory 
was  disclosed,  and  when  once  more  its  beams  shone  through  the 
purged  atmosphere  upon  mountains  and  valleys,  and  upon  seas  and 
rivers,  as  of  old.' 

It  may,  therefore,  be  fairly  said  that  modern  scientific  discoveries 
and  conclusions  can  be  reasonably  adjusted  to  fit  the  poetical  form 
of  the  early  legend  of  Creation,  though  that  record  was  in  no  way 
intended  to  be  descriptive  of  scientific  processes. 


Chaldasan  Astrologers. 

DANIEL  ii.  2  :  '  Then  the  king  commanded  to  call  the  magicians,  and  the 
astrologers,  and  the  sorcerers,  and  the  Chaldseans,  for  to  shew  the  king  his 
dreams.' 

Question. —  Within  what  limitations  may  we  suppose  these  learned 
men  to  have  worked  ?  and  were  their  researches  in  any  proper  sense 
scientific  ? 

Answer. — The  Revised  Version  gives  'enchanters'  instead  of 
'  astrologers,'  which  leaves  the  classes  mentioned  as  mere  jugglers. 
But  it  would  be  to  misjudge  the  ancient  nations  if  we  failed  to  admit 
that,  upon  a  basis  of  observation,  they  constructed  what  may  fairly 
be  called  an  elaborate  and  scientific  astrological  system. 

F.  D.  Maurice  gives  an  interesting  account  of  the  'wise  men/ 
both  of  Egypt  and  of  Chaldaea  :  '  The  wise  men,  magicians,  or  sooth- 
sayers, of  whom  we  read  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  were  no  doubt 
students  of  Nature.  They  had  observed  something  of  its  powers 
and  mysteries,  some  of  the  influences  which  it  exercises  over  man, 
some  of  the  means  which  he  possesses  of  directing  its  influences  to 
advantage  or  to  mischief.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  believed 
such  knowledge  to  have  been  communicated  by  some  Divine  power. 
The  Egyptian  knowledge  of  the  phenomena  of  the  universe,  and  of 
its  powers,  was  not  balanced  and  sustained  by  any  knowledge  of  the 
powers  and  destinies  of  man.  Those  who  became  acquainted  with 
the  things  about  them  could  not  but  feel  that  they,  the  observers, 
were  in  some  way  superior  to  that  which  they  observed.  It  is  clear 
that  they  had  that  conviction,  that  they  were  even  oppressed  by  it. 
But  the  objects  which  they  saw,  the  facts  which  were  revealed  to 
them,  soon  became  all  in  all.  They  nearly  lost  themselves  in  the 
things ;  their  higher  culture  only  helped  to  make  the  people  the  help- 
less servants  of  them.  What  he  could  tell  of  his  discoveries  made 
his  countrymen  idolaters ;  what  he  reserved,  made  him  feel  his  differ- 


CHALDEAN  ASTROLOGERS.  249 

ence  from  them,  and  led  him  to  affect  new  airs  of  superiority,  to 
devise  new  arts  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up  the  difference  and  the 
sense  of  it.  Thus  the  sagacious  man,  from  being  a  true  observer, 
passed  into  a  diviner ;  thus  he  became  the  enslaver  of  those  whom 
he  should  have  emancipated,  each  new  invention  being,  as  it  were, 
the  creation  of  a  new  god.  Such  magicians  are  the  great  corrupters 
of  kings,  teaching  them  to  rule  by  craft  and  not  by  righteousness, 
giving  them  animals  for  subjects,  not  human  beings.' 

1  In  Chaldsea  we  meet  again  the  wise  men  such  as  we  heard  of  in 
Egypt,  but  here  they  are  especially  spoken  of  as  astrologers.  The 
study  of  the  heavenly  bodies  prevailed  no  doubt  among  the  priests  of 
Thebes  and  Memphis ;  the  first  systematic  observations  respecting 
the  course  of  the  year  may  be  rightly  ascribed  to  them.  On  this 
knowledge  their  claims  to  superior  intellect  respecting  human  events 
will  in  part  have  rested.  Because  they  knew  more  of  Nature  than 
others,  they  will  have  been  able  to  divine  what  would  probably 
happen  to  the  fields  or  the  crops.  It  is  another  step  indicating  a 
different  order  of  thought  and  feeling  to  connect  the  stars  directly 
with  human  life,  and  to  believe  that  the  course  of  the  one  is  influenced 
or  regulated  by  that  of  the  other. 

'Wide  plains,  still  and  beautiful  nights,  are  favourable  to  the  de- 
velopment of  such  a  faith  ;  perhaps  only  in  such  circumstances  has 
it  ever  taken  deep  root.  For  in  such  circumstances  we  meet  with  a 
hunting  rather  than  an  agricultural  people,  with  men  whose  specula- 
tions turn  more  upon  the  success  of  their  efforts  to  procure  food  for 
themselves,  than  upon  the  chances  that  the  earth  will  produce  it  for 
them.  Physical  knowledge  in  this  condition  of  society  is  not  to  be 
looked  for.  Tyranny,  the  rule  of  a  man  claiming  dominion  over  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  and  over  the  creatures  of  his  own  race  by  the 
same  right,  will  have  here  an  earlier  commencement.  .  .  .  The  stars 
among  this  race  of  conquerors  will  have  become  dynasts  or  rulers 
over  man's  life.  Subjects  feeling  themselves  at  a  hopeless  difference 
from  their  sovereigns,  regarding  them  as  beings  of  another  kind,  will 
have  had  no  difficulty  in  looking  upon  these  cold  and  distant  and 
brilliant  orbs  as  the  Kings  of  kings  and  Lords  of  lords.  The  wise 
men,  who  hoped  for  something  better  from  the  world  than  that  which 
they  saw,  will  have  asked  these  witnesses  of  calmness  and  order  when 
a  brighter  day  should  come,  when  the  world  should  be  ruled  with 
less  of  fantasy  and  caprice.  The  passion  for  knowing  the  future  will 
have  become  indissolubly  connected  with  the  contemplation  of  the 
stars.  A  scheme  of  relations  between  them  and  the  dwellers  upon 
earth  will  have  been  wrought  out.  Guilty  monarchs  will  have  been 


25o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

perplexed  with  signs  in  the  heavens ;  they  will  eagerly  have  fled  to 
the  science  of  the  astrologers  for  relief.  In  general  they  will  have 
converted  them  into  the  ministers  of  their  purposes,  the  props  of 
their  authority.' 

Cicero  tells  us  that  '  the  Chaldaeans,  inhabiting  vast  plains,  whence 
they  had  a  full  view  of  the  heavens  on  every  side,  were  the  first  to 
observe  the  course  of  the  stars,  and  the  first  who  taught  mankind  the 
effects  which  were  thought  to  be  owing  to  them.  Of  their  observa- 
tions they  made  a  science  whereby  they  pretended  to  be  able  to  fore- 
tell to  everyone  what  was  to  befall  him,  and  what  fate  was  ordained 
him  from  his  birth.' 

The  ancient  astrologers  reckoned  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets  as 
the  interpreters  of  the  will  of  the  gods.  From  their  rising,  setting, 
colour,  and  general  aspect,  predictions  were  made  as  to  the  coming 
appearances  of  Nature  in  the  way  of  tempests,  hurricanes,  earth- 
quakes, etc.  The  planets  were  viewed  as  affecting  the  destinies  of 
men,  so  that  from  their  nature  and  position  information  might  be 
obtained  as  to  the  events  which  should  befall  a  man  throughout  his 
whole  life. 

Lucian  explains  that  *  the  heavens  were  divided  into  several  com- 
partments, over  each  of  which  a  particular  planet  presided ;  that 
some  planets  were  good  and  some  evil,  while  others  had  no  special 
character  of  their  own,  but  depended  for  their  nature  on  those 
planets  with  which  they  were  in  conjunction.  Such  being  the  ar- 
rangements of  the  heavenly  bodies,  whatsoever  planet  is  lord  of  the 
house  at  the  time  of  any  man's  nativity  produces  in  him  a  com- 
plexion, shape,  actions,  and  dispositions  of  mind  exactly  answerable 
to  its  own.' 

Diodorus  Siculus  describes  astrologers  thus  :  '  They  assert  that  the 
greatest  attention  is  given  to  the  five  stars,  called  planets,  which  they 
name  interpreters,  so  called  because,  while  the  other  stars  have  a 
fixed  path,  they  alone,  by  forming  their  own  course,  show  what  things 
will  come  to  pass,  thus  interpreting  the  will  of  the  gods ;  for  to  those 
who  study  them  carefully  they  foretell  events,  partly  by  their  rising, 
partly  by  their  setting,  and  also  by  their  colour.  Sometimes  they 
show  heavy  winds,  at  others  rains,  at  others  excess  of  heat.  The 
appearance  of  comets,  eclipses  of  the  sun,  earthquakes,  and,  in 
general,  anything  extraordinary,  has,  in  their  opinion,  an  injurious  or 
a  beneficial  effect,  not  only  on  nations  and  countries,  but  on  kings, 
and  even  on  common  individuals ;  and  they  consider  that  those  stars 
contribute  very  much  of  good  or  of  ill  in  relation  to  the  births  of 
men,  and  in  consequence  of  the  nature  of  these  things,  and  of  the 


CHALDEAN  ASTROLOGERS.  25 1 

study  of  the  stars,  they  think  they  know  accurately  the  events  that 
befall  mortals.' 

The  position  which  may  reasonably  be  taken  appears  to  be  this  : 
Astrology  is  a  strange  mixture  of  facts  and  fancies.  Man  is  unques- 
tionably influenced  by  atmospheric  conditions,  but  the  relations  were 
arranged  by  imagination,  without  the  restraint  of  any  scientific 
method.  The  astrological  system  may  be  classed  among  scientific 
systems  that  are  based  on  unscientific  foundations.  There  could  be 
no  true  science  of  the  stars  until  man's  observation  was  aided  by 
efficient  instruments.  The  mere  observation  of  the  stars  is  incentive 
to  meditation,  worship,  and  imaginative  inventiveness.  We  know 
how,  in  our  dreamy  moods,  the  evening  clouds  seem  to  assume  for 
us  weird  and  fantastic  shapes,  and  the  names  given  to  the  stars 
(Great  Bear,  etc.)  tell  us  that  ancient  imaginations  created  fantastic 
forms  out  of  the  groups  of  stars. 

Astronomy  has  taken  the  place  of  astrology.  Both  may  fairly 
claim  to  be  scientific  creations.  They  differ  in  precisely  this : 
Astronomy  is  a  scientific  construction  resting  on  data  and  observa- 
tions scientifically  obtained  and  verified. 

For  the  various  orders  into  which  the  class  of  astrologers  may  be 
divided  see  the  previous  volume,  '  Handbook  of  Biblical  Difficulties,' 
p.  224. 

A  Witch. 

FXODUS  xxii.  18  :  '  Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  (sorceress,  R.V.)  to  live.' 

Difficulty. — The  severity  with  which  a  witch  was  to  be  treated 
seems  to  indicate  that  such  persons  did  possess  some  occult  and  malevolent 
powers. 

Explanation. — This  subject  has  been  treated  in  the  former 
volume,  'Handbook  of  Biblical  Difficulties,'  p.  278,  in  connection 
with  King  Saul's  visit  to  the  woman  at  Endor.  It  may  be  helpful  to 
add  two  opinions  on  the  substratum  of  verity  in  the  pretensions  of 
these  so-called  '  witches,'  both  given  with  care  and  precision. 

Ayre  says  :  '  It  is  a  question  how  far  divination  was  an  imposition. 
That  much  imposture  was  mixed  with  it  no  one  will  deny.  But  it 
may  not  unreasonably  be  believed  that  some  dark  superior  influence 
was  at  work.  We  may  not  attempt  to  define  it.  But  if,  as  we  know, 
the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  had  sway  over  the  children  of  dis- 
obedience (Eph.  ii.  2),  and  evidenced  his  dominion  in  many  remark- 
able cases,  it  may  be  that  sometimes  the  soothsayers,  the  magicians, 
the  sorcerers,  were  helped  in  their  evil  courses  by  him  whose  slaves 


252      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

they  were.  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  whether  the  whole  were 
imposture,  or  whether  there  was  some  reality  in  it,  the  law  of  God 
was  holy,  just,  and  good,  which  condemned  and  punished  it.' 

R.  S.  Poole  says :  *  In  examining  the  mentions  of  magic  in  the 
Bible,  we  must  keep  in  view  the  curious  inquiry  whether  there  be 
any  reality  in  the  art.  We  would,  at  the  outset,  protest  against  the 
idea,  once  very  prevalent,  that  the  conviction  that  the  seen  and 
unseen  worlds  were  often  more  manifestly  in  contact  in  the  Biblical 
ages  than  now  necessitates  a  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  magic  spoken 
of  in  the  Scriptures.  We  do  indeed  see  a  connection  of  a  super- 
natural agency  with  magic  in  such  a  case  as  that  of  the  damsel 
possessed  with  a  spirit  of  divination  mentioned  in  the  Acts  ;  yet  there 
the  agency  appears  to  have  been  involuntary  in  the  damsel,  and 
shrewdly  made  profitable  by  her  employers.  This  does  not  establish 
the  possibility  of  man  being  able  at  his  will  to  use  supernatural  powers 
to  gain  his  own  ends,  which  is  what  magic  has  always  pretended  to 
accomplish.  Thus  much  we  premise,  lest  we  should  be  thought  to 
hold  latitudinarian  opinions,  because  we  treat  the  reality  of  magic  as 

an  open  question The  account  of  Saul's  consulting  the  witch 

of  Endor  is  the  foremost  place  in  Scripture  of  those  which  refer  to 
magic.  The  supernatural  terror  with  which  it  is  full  cannot,  however, 
be  proved  to  be  due  to  this  art,  for  it  has  always  been  held  by  sober 
critics  that  the  appearing  of  Samuel  (in  the  original  it  is  Samuel 
himself)  was  permitted  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  the  doom  of 
Saul,  and  not  that  it  was  caused  by  the  incantations  of  the  sorceress. 
....  Our  examination  of  the  various  notices  of  magic  in  the  Bible 
gives  us  this  general  result :  They  do  not,  as  far  as  we  can  under- 
stand, once  state  positively  that  any  but  illusive  results  were  produced 
by  magical  rites.  They  therefore  afford  no  evidence  that  man  can 
gain  supernatural  powers  to  use  at  his  will.  This  consequence  goes 
some  way  towards  showing  that  we  may  conclude  that  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  real  magic  ;  for  although  it  is  dangerous  to  reason  on 
negative  evidence,  yet  in  a  case  of  this  kind  it  is  especially  strong. 
The  general  belief  of  mankind  in  magic,  or  things  akin  to  it,  is  of  no 
worth,  since  the  holding  such  current  superstition  in  some  of  its 
branches,  if  we  push  it  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  would  lead  to 
the  rejection  of  faith  in  God's  government  of  the  world,  and  the 
adoption  of  a  creed  far  below  that  of  Plato.' 

But  we  logical  Westerns  are  always  in  grave  danger  of  failing  to 
understand  the  illogical  and  imaginative  Easterns.  And  magic  may 
have  appeared  to  them  otherwise  than  it  appears  to  us,  who  persist 
in  subjecting  everything  to  what  we  call  scientific  verification. 


A    WITCH.  253 

Mr.  Poole  carefully  traces  the  history  of  magic  in  the  early  races, 
and  prepares  us  to  see  how  education  and  civilization  surely  dispel 
all  belief  in  it.  He  says  :  '  With  the  lowest  race  magic  is  the  chief 
part  of  religion.  The  Nigritians,  or  blacks  of  this  race,  show  this  in 
their  extreme  use  of  amulets  and  their  worship  of  objects  which  have 
no  other  value  in  their  eyes,  but  as  having  a  supposed  magical 
character  through  the  influence  of  supernatural  agents.  With  the 
Turanians,  or  corresponding  whites  of  the  same  great  family — we 
use  the  word  white  for  a  group  of  nations  mainly  yellow,  in  contra- 
distinction to  black — incantations  and  witchcraft  occupy  the  same 
place,  shamanism  characterizing  their  tribes  in  both  hemispheres. 
....  With  the  Shemites  magic  takes  a  lower  place.  Nowhere  is  it 
even  part  of  religion ;  yet  it  is  looked  upon  as  a  powerful  engine, 
and  generally  unlawful  or  lawful  according  to  the  aid  invoked.  The 
importance  of  astrology  with  the  Shemites  has  tended  to  raise  the 
character  of  their  magic,  which  deals  rather  with  the  discovery  of 
supposed  existing  influences  than  with  the  production  of  new  in- 
fluences. The  Iranians  assign  to  magic  a  still  less  important  position. 
It  can  scarcely  be  traced  in  the  relics  of  old  nature-worship,  which 
they,  with  greater  skill  than  the  Egyptians,  interwove  with  their  more 
intellectual  beliefs,  as  the  Greeks  gave  the  objects  of  reverence  in 
Arcadia  and  Crete  a  place  in  poetical  myths,  and  the  Scandinavians 
animated  the  hard  remains  of  primitive  superstition.  Men  of  highly 
sensitive  temperaments  have  always  inclined  to  the  belief  in  magic, 
and  there  has,  therefore,  been  a  section  of  Iranian  philosophers  in 
all  ages  who  have  paid  attention  to  its  practice ;  but,  expelled  from 
religion,  it  has  held  but  a  low  and  precarious  place  in  philosophy.' 
The  Hebrews  had  no  magic  of  their  own. 

In  treating  of  the  possible  power  behind  wizards  and  witches,  it  is 
more  important  to  consider  the  receptivity,  sensitiveness,  and  super- 
stition of  those  whom  they  delude,  than  the  nature  of  their  own 
power.  The  readiness  to  be  deceived  almost  suffices  to  explain  the 
skill  of  the  deceiver.  If  there  were  no  dupes  there  would  be  no 
cheats.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  all  the  effects  produced 
by  wizards  and  witches  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  operation  of 
natural  causes  ;  and  that,  however  the  existence  of  spirits,  malevolent 
spirits,  may  be  argued  from  other  points  of  view,  no  support  for 
their  existence  can  be  fairly  obtained  from  the  claims  of  the  witches, 
whose  power — whatever  it  is — is  their  own. 


254      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  Appointment  of  the  Rainbow. 

GENESIS  ix.  13  :  '  I  do  set  My  bow  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall  be  for  a  token  of  a 
covenant  between  Me  and  the  earth.' 

Question. — How  does  the  scientific  explanation  of  the  rainbow  help 
to  the  understanding  of  this  reference  to  it  as  a  sign  ? 

Answer. — '  Rainbows  are  of  two  kinds,  solar  and  lunar.  The 
latter  are  of  comparatively  rare  occurrence ;  the  former  are  those 
referred  to  in  the  Bible.  The  rainbow  is  seen  when  the  sun  is 
shining  on  rain  falling  in  the  part  of  the  atmosphere  on  which  the 
spectator's  eye  is  fixed.  When  the  rays  strike  the  falling  drops  they 
are  refracted  as  they  enter  them,  and  reflected  back  on  the  rain-cloud. 
On  leaving  the  drops  a  second  refraction  of  rays  takes  place,  and  the 
result  is  the  rainbow.  When  the  rain  falls  in  considerable  quantities, 
and  the  circumstances  now  named  concur,  a  second  bow  is  often 
seen  concentric  with  the  first,  the  prismatic  colours  in  both  being 
arranged  in  bands  as  in  the  solar  spectrum — the  order,  however, 
being  reversed  in  the  second  bow.  Instead  of  the  upper  edge  being, 
as  in  the  exterior  bow,  violet,  it  is  red,  and  the  lower  edge  is  violet 
instead  of  red.  The  cloud  is  generally  dark  on  which  the  bow 
appears,  though  this  is  not  always  the  case.  Rainbows  have  been 
seen  when  only  a  few  light  fleecy  clouds  were  scattered  over  the  sky, 
and  more  than  once  they  have  been  observed  when  no  clouds  were 
perceptible.'  That  the  rainbow  is  a  result  of  universally  working 
natural  law  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  they  are  created  in  miniature 
by  the  sunlight  falling  on  the  spray  from  a  waterfall.  The  scientific 
man  will  refuse  to  admit  that,  at  any  time,  or  under  any  circum- 
stances, the  result  would  fail  to  appear  if  the  given  conditions  were 
found.  This  must  be  fully  and  freely  admitted ;  rainbows  were  always 
formed  when  sunshine  in  the  atmosphere  was  reflected  from  falling 
drops  of  water. 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  rainbow  must  have  been  a 
special  creation  after  the  Flood.  Common-sense  assumes  what  the 
language  of  the  Bible  narrative  distinctly  supports,  that  the  existing 
rainbow  had,  from  the  time  of  the  restoration  of  the  earth,  a  new 
suggestion  associated  with  it.  Its  appearance  in  the  sky  was  to 
suggest  to  man  God's  promise,  and  God's  faithfulness  to  His  promise. 
It  was  specially  significant  because,  as  a  natural  phenomenon,  it  came 
when  sunshine  broke  out  after  passing  storm.  Only  by  unnatural 
forcing  of  the  Bible  language  can  Bible  authority  be  claimed  for  the 
idea  of  a  readjustment  of  natural  conditions  to  produce  the  rainbow 
as  a  new  thing. 


THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  THE  RAINBOW.       255 

This  is  now  generally  admitted,  but  as  the  error  still  lingers  among 
us,  it  may  be  well  to  give  some  authoritative  judgments  on  the 
subject. 

The  helplessness  of  all  attempts  to  scientifically  explain  the  origina- 
tion of  the  rainbow  in  Noah's  time,  indicates  to  what  straits  the  advo- 
cates of  that  theory  are  driven.  We  give  one  specimen  :  *  Though 
it  had  rained  before  the  deluge,  yet  the  superintending  Providence 
which  caused  the  rainbow  to  appear  as  a  pledge  of  the  assurance  that 
He  gave  (that  the  world  should  never  more  be  destroyed  by  water), 
might  have  prevented  the  concurrence  of  such  circumstances  in  the 
time  of  rain  as  were  essentially  necessary  for  the  formation  of  a  bow. 
It  might  have  rained  when  the  sun  was  set,  or  when  he  was  more 
than  fifty-four  degrees  high,  when  no  bow  could  be  seen,  and  the 
rain  might  continue  between  the  spectator  and  the  sun  until  the 
clouds  were  expended,  or  in  any  other  direction  but  that  of  an 
opposition  to  the  sun.' 

But  the  existence  of  rain  long  before  man  is  evidenced  by  the 
impressions  of  rain-drops  found  in  several  geological  formations.  And 
no  evidence  whatever  can  be  adduced  to  show  that  atmospheric  con- 
ditions were  different  in  antediluvian  times  from  what  they  have  been 
since.  '  The  general  opinion  of  theologians  and  expositors  is,  that 
the  rainbow  did  not  then  appear  visible  for  the  first  time,  but 
that  it  was  then  set,  or  appointed,  or  given,  as  the  token  of  the 
covenant.' 

Dr.  Gumming  says  :  c  The  literal  rendering  is,  "  I  do  appoint  My 
bow  in  the  cloud ;"  and  the  very  expression  shows  that  the  rainbow 
must  have  existed  prior  to  the  Flood — though  it  was  subsequent  to 
the  Flood  that  it  became  a  symbol,  or  sign,  to  denote  that  the  world 
should  never  again  be  overflowed.  If  there  were  raindrops  and  sun- 
beams before  the  Flood,  there  must  have  been  rainbows,  because  the 
rainbow  is  produced  by  the  refraction  of  the  rays  of  light  from  the 
drops  of  water  which  fall  in  a  shower.  But  the  Bible  does  not  assert 
that  God  created  the  rainbow  immediately  after  the  Flood,  but  that 
He  then  applied  it  to  this  special  use,  just  as  He  applied  the  twelve 
stones  set  up  after  the  children  of  Israel  had  crossed  the  Jordan,  as 
He  still  applies  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper,  and  water  in 
baptism — namely,  old  things  for  new  uses,  sacred  symbols  to  give 
consolation  and  peace  to  true  believers.' 

Bishop  Home  suggestively  paraphrases  the  above  passage.  '  When, 
in  the  common  course  of  things,  I  bring  a  cloud  over  the  earth,  under 
certain  circumstances,  I  do  set  My  bow  in  it.  That  bow  shall  be 
from  henceforth  a  token  of  the  covenant  I  now  make  with  you  to 


256      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

drown  the  earth  no  more  by  a  flood.  Look  upon  it,  and  remember 
this  covenant.' 

Prebendary  Eddrup,  in  '  Smith's  Dictionary,'  says  :  '  The  right 
interpretation  of  Gen.  ix.  13  seems  to  be  that  God  took  the  rainbow, 
which  had  hitherto  been  but  a  beautiful  object  shining  in  the  heavens 
when  the  sun's  rays  fell  on  falling  rain,  and  consecrated  it  as  the  sign 
of  His  love,  and  the  witness  of  His  promise.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  says  :  '  We  may  dismiss  all  such  curious  specu- 
lations as  that  no  rain  fell  before  the  Flood,  or  that  some  condition 
was  wanting  necessary  for  producing  this  glorious  symbol.  What 
Noah  needed  was  a  guarantee  and  a  memorial  which,  as  often  as  rain 
occurred,  would  bring  back  to  his  thoughts  the  Divine  promise ;  and 
such  a  memorial  was  best  taken  from  the  natural  accompaniments  of 
rain.  We  may  further  notice,  with  Maimonides,  that  the  words  are 
not,  as  in  our  version,  "I  do  set,"  but,  "J/y  bow  have  I  set  in  the 
cloud  " — that  is,  the  bow  which  God  set  in  the  cloud  on  that  day  of 
creation  in  which  He  imposed  upon  air  and  water  those  laws  which 
produce  this  phenomenon,  is  now  to  become  the  sign  of  a  solemn 
compact  made  with  man  by  God,  whereby  He  gives  man  the  assur- 
ance that  neither  himself  nor  his  works  shall  ever  again  be  swept 
away  by  a  flood.' 

The  Speakers  Commentary  says  :  '  It  appears  at  first  sight  as  if  the 
words  of  the  sacred  record  implied  that  this  was  the  first  rainbow 
ever  seen  on  earth.  But  it  would  be  doing  no  violence  to  the  sacred 
text  to  believe  that  the  rainbow  had  been  already  a  familiar  sight,  but 
that  it  was  newly  constituted  the  sign  or  token  of  a  covenant,  just  as 
afterwards  the  familiar  rite  of  baptism,  and  the  customary  use  of 
bread  and  wine,  were  by  our  blessed  Lord  ordained  to  be  the  tokens 
and  pledges  of  the  New  Covenant  in  Christ  between  His  heavenly 
Father  and  every  Christian  soul.' 

Geikie  has  a  very  interesting  note :  '  The  first  covenant  between 
God  and  man  was  confirmed  by  a  sign  worthy  of  a  transaction  so 
unique.  The  rainbow  had  glittered  on  the  clouds  for  immeasurable 
ages  before  man's  creation,  but  it  was  now  to  be  adopted  as  a  Divine 
pledge  of  goodwill  to  our  race.  Other  covenants  would  be  made 
with  Abraham  and  with  Moses,  but  they  were  sealed  only  by  a  per- 
sonal or  passing  pledge  ;  this  had  a  perennial  sign  in  heaven  vouch- 
safed it.  The  simplicity  of  the  language  used  is  only  equalled  by  its 
beauty.  *  When  I  bring  a  cloud  over  the  earth,3  and  cause  it  to  rain, 
'  the  bow  shall  be  on  the  cloud,  and  I  will  look  on  it,  that  I  may 
remember  the  everlasting  covenant  between  God  and  every  living 
creature,'  and  stay  the  rain,  '  that  it  become  no  more  a  flood  like 


BALAAM  THE  MAGICIAN.  257 

that  which  has  just  ended.'  The  sacredness  of  the  rainbow  has 
passed  from  this  consecration  into  the  religions  and  poetry  of  all 
nations.  Homer  tells  us  that  Jupiter  set  it  in  the  clouds  for  a  sign. 
In  the  so-called  Field  of  the  Magi,  in  Persia,  there  may  still  be  seen 
a  picture  cut  in  the  rock,  showing  a  winged  boy  sitting  on  a  rainbow, 
and  an  old  man  before  it  in  the  attitude  of  prayer.  The  Greeks 
fabled  Iris,  who  brought  messages  from  God  to  man,  as  the  rainbow. 
The  old  Scandinavians,  and  perhaps  the  Germans,  fancied  it  a  bridge 
built  by  God  to  link  heaven  and  earth.  But  in  Genesis  the  symbol 
is  grandly  monotheistic  and  spiritual.  The  rainbow  is  the  pledge  of 
friendship  between  God  and  man,  the  token  of  Divine  grace  and 
pity,  the  assurance  of  preserving  care.  Appearing  only  when  the  sun 
has  finally  broken  through  the  clouds,  it  is,  moreover,  a  special  sign 
that  the  watery  destruction  which  the  clouds  held  in  their  bosom  is 
already  turned  aside.' 

Balaam  the   Magician. 

NUMBERS  xxii.  5  (Rev.  Ver.) :  '  And  he  sent  messengers  unto  Balaam  the  son  of 
Beor,  to  Pethor,  which  is  by  the  River,  to  the  land  of  the  children  of  his  people, 
to  call  him.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  unreasonable  to  imagine  that  Balak  would  send 
to  a  Jehovah-prophet  to  curse  Jehovah's  people. 

Explanation. — It  is  too  hastily  assumed  that  Balaam  was  a 
prophet  of  the  one  true  God.  It  may  even  be  disputed  whether  the 
common  notion  that  Balaam  came  from  the  far  East  is  a  correct  one. 
The  Revised  Version  tells  us  that  Balak  sent  to  'the  land  of  the 
children  of  his  people,'  which  implies  a  district  where  either 
descendants  of  the  Moabites,  or  a  kindred  race,  were  settled.  It 
would  be  a  very  strange  thing  for  Balak  to  get  a  prophet  of  another 
religion  to  do  his  work.  He  would  naturally  seek  for  the  best-known 
and  most  successful  prophet  of  his  own  religion.  And  Balaam  was 
well  known,  and  had  been  so  successful,  that  he  could  charge  his 
own  price,  and  was  not  likely  to  act  without  large  rewards. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  heathen  religions  recognised  one  supreme 
God,  and  many  subordinate  gods,  who  were  the  manifestation  and 
the  agency  of  the  supreme.  And  it  was  quite  within  their  concep- 
tion that  a  prophet  of  one  of  the  subordinate  gods  should  at  times 
be  directly  guided  by  the  supreme  God.  It  is  possible  that  we  have 
something  of  this  kind  in  the  case  of  Balaam.  The  supreme  God 
interferes,  and  checks  Balaam  in  doing  what  he  proposed  to  do  as 
the  prophet  of  Balak's  god  and  his  own.  The  supreme  God  even 

17 


258      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

overmasters  the  prophetical  gift,  and  compels  Balaam  to  utter  bless- 
ings instead  of  curses.  This  view  will  help  to  explain  the  confusion 
of  Balaam's  mind,  and  the  fact  that  he  evidently  says  and  does 
throughout  what  was  against  his  inclination.  He  was  but  the 
prophet  of  the  true  God  for  the  nonce,  and  under  compulsion. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  idolatry  which  puts  gods  in  the 
place  of  God  is  far  less  frequently  found  than  idolatry  which  makes 
gods  represent,  and  act  as  agents  for,  God.  The  ignorant  masses 
limit  their  vision  to  gods,  but  behind  every  idolatrous  system  there 
is,  more  or  less  clearly  discernible,  the  figure  of  the  supreme  and 
spiritual  God.  And  that  it  is  so  is  shown  by  the  form  of  the  com- 
mandment given  to  the  Jews.  They  are  not  thought  of  as  in  danger 
of  putting  away  God,  but  of  putting  something  between  them  and 
Him.  '  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me.  Thou  shalt  not 
make  any  likeness,'  etc. 

Let  us  see  what  can  be  known  concerning  the  district  from 
which  Balaam  came,  and  the  god  he  may  be  supposed  to  have 
served. 

Dean  Stanley  was  perhaps  unconsciously  led  to  make  more  of 
Balaam  than  the  brief  records  we  have  of  him  fairly  warrant.  He 
finds  in  him  a  true  prophet  of  God,  working  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  Jewish  people.  He  calls  him  *  the  Gentile  prophet  Balaam,'  and 
says :  '  His  home  is  beyond  the  Euphrates,  amongst  the  mountains 
where  the  vast  streams  of  Mesopotamia  have  their  rise.  But  his 
fame  is  known  across  the  Assyrian  desert,  through  the  Arabian  tribes, 
down  to  the  very  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea.  ...  In  his  career  is  seen 
that  recognition  of  Divine  inspiration  outside  the  chosen  people, 
which  the  narrowness  of  modern  times  has  been  so  eager  to  deny, 
but  which  the  Scriptures  are  always  ready  to  acknowledge,  and,  by 
acknowledging,  admit  within  the  pale  of  the  teachers  of  the  universal 
Church  the  higher  spirits  of  every  age  and  of  every  nation.' 

But  the  only  hint  given  us  of  Balaam's  location  is  in  the  words  of 
Num.  xxii.  5,  with  which  this  paragraph  is  headed,  and  it  is  plain 
from  it  that  Pethor  must  be  looked  for  in  some  district  near  Moab, 
and  not  in  the  distant  East,  which  would  involve  months  of  travel 
for  Balak's  messengers  and  for  Balaam.  In  Num.  xxiii.  7  Balaam 
says :  *  Balak,  the  King  of  Moab,  hath  brought  me  from  Aram,  out 
of  the  mountains  of  the  east.'  But  Aram  is  a  term  covering  a  vast 
area,  and  many  authorities  read  in  Num.  xxii.  5,  for  '  children  of  his 
people,'  '  children  of  Ammon.' 

Pethor  has  been  sought  in  vain  on  the  line  of  the  Euphrates.  It 
is  placed  somewhere  only  because  it  has  first  been  settled  that  it 


SALAAM  THE  MAGICIAN.  259 

must  be  there  somewhere.  Probably  it  would  soon  be  identified  if 
it  were  sought  only  a  few  days'  journey  from  Moab  in  the  Syrian 
district.  Ay  re  suggests  that  it  should  be  looked  for  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Bashan,  and  refers  to  Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  Jan.,  1852, 
pp.  384-386. 

If  we  may  look  for  the  home  of  Balaam  near,  comparatively,  to 
Moab,  and  find  his  work  among  the  Moabites  and  kindred  neigh- 
bouring nations,  we  may  fairly  assume  that  his  religion  was  the 
religion  of  the  races  among  whom  he  worked.  We  know  that  those 
nations  recognised  Jehovah  as  the  God  of  Israel,  and  a  mighty  God, 
and  it  would  be  no  surprise  to  them  that  the  God  of  Israel  should 
influence  the  magician,  and  so  defend  His  own  people. 

Balaam  is  best  regarded  as  a  famous  magician,  like  other  magicians 
of  the  age.  Just  as  the  woman  of  Endor  was  overmastered  by  the 
power  of  God,  and  Samuel  was  brought  up  apart  from  her  incanta- 
tions, so  Balaam  was  surprised  and  mastered  by  Divine  communica- 
tions such  as  he  had  never  known  before,  and  never  knew  again. 
He  never  had  been  in  any  sense  a  prophet  of  God,  and  he  never 
became  one.  He  belonged  to  the  class  of  magicians  who  are  fairly 
represented  by  the  '  rain-makers '  of  savage  tribes.  The  story  of 
Balaam  is  given  as  an  illustration  of  the  Divine  defence  of  the  chosen 
people  from  one  of  the  terrors  of  the  age. 

Harper,  in  his  recent  book  '  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries,' 
gathers  up  some  very  interesting  information  relating  to  the  heathen 
character  of  Balaam's  magical  rites  :  '  The  first  station  of  Balaam  was 
the  hill  of  Baal,  the  sun-god ;  the  second  that  of  Nebo,  or  Mercury ; 
the  third,  of  Peor,  the  Priapus  of  Moab,  who  resembled  the  Egyptian 
Khem.  At  each  site  seven  altars  were  raised,  one  to  each  of  the 
seven  planetary  gods — the  Cabiri  of  Phoenicia,  whose  aid  was  invoked 
against  the  God  of  Israel. 

*  The  third  station  evidently  gave  a  more  extensive  view,  and  it 
could  not  have  been  far  from  the  other  two  stations.  Such  a  ridge 
we  find  immediately  south  of  that  of  Bamoth-Baal,  in  the  narrow 
spur  that  runs  out  to  Minyeh.  The  very  name  at  once  suggests  a 
connection  with  Peor,  for  it  means  luck  or  desire,  and  is  intimately 
connected  with  that  of  Meni,  or  Venus,  the  proper  wife  of  Peor ; 
while  a  legend  of  a  magic  well,  springing  from  the  spear  of  'Aly, 
attaches  to  the  spot. 

1  It  was,  therefore,  a  most  interesting  discovery  to  find,  on  the 
very  edge  of  the  cliff  of  Minyeh,  a  line  of  seven  monuments  of  large 
stones,  concerning  which  the  Arabs  have  no  traditions,  only  that 
they  are  very  ancient.  In  each  case  a  circle  has  existed,  with  a 

17—2 


260     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

central  cubical  stone,  such  as  the  ancient  Arabs  used  to  consecrate 
to  their  chief  female  divinity,  and  each  had  originally  a  little  court 
or  enclosure  on  the  east,  where  the  worshipper  stood  with  his 
face  to  the  west,  the  proper  quarter  of  Hathor  (or  Venus)  in  Egypt, 
the  home  of  the  evening  aurora  seen  behind  the  mountains  of 
Judah. 

1  Cairns  of  huge  size,  stone  circles,  huge  upright  standing  stones, 
are  found  in  many  places ;  but  in  this  region  they  abound,  and  their 
position  points  to  the  fact  that  here,  where  Balaam  was  brought  by 
Balak,  was  the  very  centre  of  the  heathen  worship.  Some  circles 
are  100  yards  in  diameter.  Of  the  upright  stones,  called  menhirs, 
the  most  important  group  was  found  by  the  "  Palestine  explorers  "  at 
El  Mareighat,  then  a  square  enclosure,  an  inner  circle,  a  central 
group  on  the  top  of  the  knoll,  and  alignments  on  the  west.  The 
Arabs  call  them  "  the  smeared  stones,"  and  there  is  little  doubt  that 
they  were  originally  the  objects  of  pagan  worship — once  anointed 
with  oil,  or  smeared  with  blood.  There  is  no  evidence  to  connect 
any  of  them  with  places  of  sepulture.  The  main  object  of  their 
erection  seemed  always  to  be  the  construction  of  a  flat  table,  ar- 
ranged with  a  slight  tilt  in  the  direction  of  its  length.  They  are 
nearly  always  near  streams  of  water — always  in  places  where  good 
views  are  to  be  got.  Cup-hollows  are  in  the  tables,  or  top-stone. 
Sometimes  channels  are  cut  from  the  cup-hollow,  all  irresistibly 
giving  evidence  that  some  sort  of  libation  was  poured  on  the 
stone. 

'  It  may  seem  a  bold  suggestion,  but  there  appears  nothing  ex- 
travagant in  the  idea,  that  the  altars  erected  by  Balaam,  or  some  of 
them,  are  these  very  altars  found  by  the  exploring  party.' 

Soothsayers. 

ISAIAH  ii.  6  :   '  And  are  soothsayers  like  the  Philistines.' 

Question. — flow  are  soothsayers  distinguished  from  diviners  gener- 
ally ? 

Answer. — It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  term  '  soothsayer ' 
is  to  be  regarded  as  referring  to  any  exclusive  magical  methods.  The 
word  Gazerim,  if  it  is  connected  with  the  word  Kazir  of  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions,  should  mean  men  who  collected  the  laws  on  astrological 
phenomena  and  portents,  and  pronounced  upon  them.  Some  trans- 
late Gazerim  as  '  deciders,'  and  think  the  term  refers  to  those  who 
cast  nativities,  and  by  various  modes  of  computing  foretell  the  fortunes 
of  men. 


SOOTHS  A  YERS.  261 

Delitzsch  renders  the  word  '  soothsayers '  '  cloud-makers,'  which 
suggests  the  common  name  of  sorcerers  in  savage  tribes, '  rain-makers.' 
Cheyne  renders,  '  diviners  of  the  clouds,'  and  reminds  us  that  the 
clouds,  both  of  the  day  and  night,  were  studied  by  the  Chaldaean 
diviners. 

From  i  Sam.  vi.  2,  we  learn  that  the  Philistines  had  a  recognised 
order  of  diviners,  and  a  famous  oracle  at  Ekron. 

Dean  Plumptre  has  a  suggestive  note  on  this  verse  :  * "  Sooth- 
sayers," literally,  cloud-diviners.  The  word  points  to  the  claim  of 
being  "  storm-raisers,"  which  has  been  in  all  ages  one  of  the  boasts 
of  sorcerers.  The  conquests  of  Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  6)  had 
brought  Judah  into  contact  with  the  Philistines,  and  the  oracles  at 
Ekron  and  elsewhere  (2  Kings  i.  2)  attracted  the  people  of  Judah. 
There  was,  as  it  were,  a  mania  for  divination,  and  the  diviners  of 
Philistia  found  imitators  among  the  people  of  Jehovah.' 

Woolwrych  gives  the  derivation  of  soothsayer  as  in  first  English 
soth-bora  (truth-bearer).  He  says,  soth-cwithe  is  an  oracle ;  soth-saga^ 
history.  Sooth  is  common  in  Chaucer  for  truth,  and  opposed  to 
false.  As  used  in  Scripture  it  denotes  a  class  of  men  who  decided 
nativities,  observed  clouds,  and  divined  by  means  of  cups  or  rods. 
The  word  suggests  at  least  the  pretension  of  telling  the  truth  (sooth) 
to  a  man ;  the  truth,  that  is,  about  his  future. 


Jehovah's   People  casting  '  Lots/ 

JOSHUA  xviii.  6  :  '  And  ye  shall  describe  the  land  into  seven  portions,  and  bring 
the  description  hither  to  me  :  and  I  will  cast  lots  for  you  here  before  the  Lord  our 
God.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  not  easy  to  see  a  sufficient  reason  for  apportioning 
by  lot)  when  the  inspiration  of  God  might  have  led  Joshua  to  make 
satisfactory  divisions. 

Explanation. — The  plan  was  evidently  adopted  in  order  to 
secure  the  aid  of  the  people  in  the  apportionment,  and  to  convince 
them  that  everything  was  perfectly  fair  and  straightforward.  The 
disposal  was,  even  by  the  system  of  lot,  left  absolutely  in  the  hand 
of  God ;  but  if  every  man  felt  that  he  had  his  chance,  all  heart- 
burnings and  jealousies  were  prevented. 

If  the  apportionments  had  been  made  through  Joshua,  the  people 
who  were  discontented  with  their  portions  would  be  sure  to  say  that 
they  were  made  by  Joshua,  and  that  he  had  shown  favouritism. 

It  is  true  that  deciding  by  lot  is  common  under  heathen  and  pagan 
systems ;  but  in  these  cases  everything  is  left  to  chance.  In  the  case 


262      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  the  Israelites  the  will  of  the  living  Lord  was  simply  made  known 
through  this  particular  agency,  instead  of  by  the  words  of  Joshua. 
The  lot  was,  for  Israel,  an  acted  expression  of  the  will  of  Jehovah. 

Then  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  people  did  not  cast  lots  for 
themselves — Joshua  cast  lots  for  them ;  and  he  did  it  in  a  solemn 
manner  before  the  symbols  of  the  Divine  presence.  When  we  notice 
similarities  between  heathen  customs  and  Jewish,  we  should  be  very 
keen  to  observe  the  differences,  because  these  may  effectively  remove 
the  evils  of  the  custom. 

The  custom  of  deciding  doubtful  questions  by  lot  is  one  of  great 
extent  and  high  antiquity,  recommending  itself  as  a  sort  of  appeal  to 
the  Almighty,  secure  from  all  influence  of  passion  or  bias,  and  is  a 
sort  of  divination  employed  even  by  the  gods  themselves.  It  may 
fairly  be  used  still  when  a  question  cannot  be  decided  absolutely  on 
its  merits,  but  feeling  is  sure  to  bias  the  judgment. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  makes  suggestions  as  to  the  ways  in 
which  the  lot  was  taken  by  Joshua.  On  such  a  matter  there  can  be 
no  more  than  conjecture.  '  Perhaps  two  urns  were  employed,  one 
containing  a  description  of  the  several  districts  to  be  allotted,  the 
other  the  names  of  the  tribes ;  and  the  portion  of  each  tribe  would 
then  be  determined  by  a  simultaneous  drawing  from  the  two  urns. 
Or  a  drawing  might  be  made  by  some  appointed  person,  or  by  a 
delegate  of  each  tribe  from  one  urn  containing  the  descriptions  of 
the  ten  inheritances.'  In  whatever  way  it  was  taken,  the  lot  would 
be  appealed  to  as  finally  deciding  the  matter,  and  foreclosing  jealousies 
and  disputes. 

The  Pillar  of  Cloud  and  Fire. 

EXODUS  xiii.  21  :  *  And  the  Lord  went  before  them  by  day  in  a  pillar  of  cloud, 
to  lead  them  the  way  ;  and  by  night  in  a  pillar  of  fire,  to  give  them  light ;  that  they 
might  go  by  day  and  by  night.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  suggest,  with  any  confidence^  the  form 
and  appearance  of  this  ' pillar '  ? 

Answer. — A  column  of  smoke  rising  from  a  desert  fire  may 
properly  be  spoken  of  as  a  pillar.  Such  a  pillar  of  smoke  during  the 
day  would  look  dark  like  a  cloud,  but  at  night  it  would  be  bright, 
lighted  up  by  the  glow  of  the  fire  in  it.  We  are  to  imagine,  then, 
such  a  pillar  of  smoke  rising  perpendicularly  from  some  point  in  the 
camp,  probably  Moses'  tent.  It  manifestly  differed  from  any  bank 
of  cloud  in  the  sky,  as  clouds  lie  parallel  with  the  earth,  and  this 
pillar  stood  between  earth  and  sky.  The  wonder  of  it  lay  in  its  being 
smoke  from  no  fire,  and  at  night  a  bright  appearance,  though  there 


THE  PILLAR  OF  CLOUD  AND  FIRE.  263 

was  no  blaze  to  send  its  glow  into  it.  When  the  tabernacle  was 
erected,  and  the  Shekinah  glory  rested  on  the  mercy-seat,  the  pillar 
of  cloud  and  fire  gained  its  full  associations,  which,  previously,  could 
only  have  been  suggested  and  anticipated. 

Eastern  caravans  and  armies  are  still,  in  many  cases,  guided  by 
signals  of  fire  and  smoke,  which  take  their  place  at  the  front  of  the 
march.  Some  illustrations  have  been  collected.  Alexander  the 
Great  had  a  huge  cresset  set  up  on  a  tall  pole  over  his  tent  as  a 
signal  for  departure,  seen  far  off  by  all,  by  its  light  in  darkness  and 
its  smoke  by  day.  Seetzen  quotes  from  an  old  Arab  MS.  the  fact 
that  the  caliphs  used  fire  to  send  news  swiftly — the  brightness  serving 
this  end  by  night  and  the  smoke  by  day.  The  vast  pilgrim  caravans 
to  Mecca  guide  themselves  in  a  similar  way.  An  Egyptian  general, 
in  an  ancient  inscription,  is  compared  to  a  flame  streaming  in  advance 
of  an  army,  and  this  is  repeated  in  an  old  papyrus. 

It  has  been  said  of  the  Hebrews  :  '  Their  march  was  guided  by 
Jehovah  Himself,  who,  from  the  commencement  of  their  journey  to 
their  entrance  into  Canaan,  displayed  His  banner,  the  Shekinah,  in 
their  van.' 

Dr.  J.  Macgregor  says  :  '  In  that  region  a  military  chief,  by  way  of 
banner,  may  have  a  column  of  smoke,  rising  from  a  fire  which  is 
carried  on  a  brazier  for  the  purpose.  In  the  pure  atmosphere  it  can 
be  seen  from  a  great  distance,  so  that  by  means  of  it  he  may  lead  a 
population  spreading  wide  over  the  whole  region.  The  same  fire, 
maintained  through  the  night,  will  still  have  in  it  the  authoritative 
guidance,  because  the  flame  shows  through  the  darkness,  as  smoke 
shows  through  the  clear  sky.  An  expression  of  Quintus  Curtius,  in 
his  "  Life  of  Alexander  the  Great,"  has  been  noted  on  account  of  its 
resemblance  to  the  description  in  the  above  passage  —  "  Observabatur 
ignis  noctu  fumus  interdiu  " — "  They  kept  their  eye  upon  the  fire  by 
night,  and  upon  the  smoke  by  day." ' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  adds  a  point  or  two  of  interest :  '  The 
Lord  Himself  did  for  the  Israelites  by  preternatural  means  that 
which  armies  were  obliged  to  do  for  themselves  by  natural  agents. 
Passages  are  quoted  from  classical  writers  which  show  that  the 
Persians  and  Greeks  used  fire  and  smoke  as  signals  in  their  marches. 
Vegetius  and  Frontinus  mention  it  as  a  general  custom,  especially 
among  the  Arabians.  The  success  of  some  important  expeditions, 
as  of  Thrasybulus  and  Timoleon,  was  attributed  by  popular  supersti- 
tion to  a  Divine  light  guiding  the  leaders.  To  these  well-known 
instances  may  be  added  two  of  peculiar  interest,  as  bearing  witness 
to  a  custom  known  to  all  the  contemporaries  of  Moses.  In  an  in- 


264      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

scription  of  the  Ancient  Empire  an  Egyptian  general  is  compared  to 
"  a  flame  streaming  in  advance  of  an  army."  Thus,  too,  in  a  well- 
known  papyrus,  the  commander  of  an  expedition  is  called  "  a  flame 
in  the  darkness  at  the  head  of  his  soldiers."  By  this  sign,  then, 
of  the  pillar  of  cloud,  the  Lord  showed  Himself  as  their  leader  and 
general.' 

Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  '  From  Succoth  certainly,  probably  from 
Rameses,  God  moved  in  front  of  the  host  in  the  form  of  a  pillar, 
which  had  the  appearance  of  smoke  by  day  and  of  fire  by  night.  The 
Israelites  marched,  it  is  implied,  some  part  of  each  day  and  some 
part  of  each  night,  which  would  be  in  accordance  with  modern  prac- 
tice, and  is  an  arrangement  introduced  to  get  the  march  accomplished 
before  the  sun  attains  its  full  power.  The  pillar  was  at  once  a  signal 
and  a  guide.' 

Fighting  Stars. 

JUDGES  v.  20 :  '  They  fought  from  heaven  ;  the  stars  in  their  courses  fought  against 
Sisera.' 

Difficulty. — Accepting  this  as  a  poetical  figure,  there  must,  never- 
theless, have  been  some  astrological  notions  on  which  it  was  based. 

Explanation. — It  will  be  well  to  inquire  first  what  historical 
facts  are  thus  poetically  represented.  It  is  not  possible  to  improve 
on  Dean  Stanley's  vigorous  and  suggestive  description  of  the  defeat 
of  Sisera.  The  final  encampment  of  the  Canaanitish  army  'was 
beside  the  numerous  rivulets  which,  descending  from  the  hills  of 
Megiddo  into  the  Kishon,  as  it  flows  in  a  broader  stream  through  the 
cornfields  below,  may  well  have  been  known  as  "  the  waters  of 
Megiddo."  It  was  at  this  critical  moment  that  (as  we  learn  directly 
from  Josephus,  and  indirectly  from  the  song  of  Deborah)  a  tremendous 
storm  of  sleet  and  hail  gathered  from  the  East  and  burst  over  the 
plain,  driving  full  in  the  faces  of  the  advancing  Canaanites.  "  The 
stars  in  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera."  As  in  like  case  in  the 
battle  of  Cressy,  the  slingers  and  the  archers  were  disabled  by  the 
rain,  the  swordsmen  were  crippled  by  the  biting  cold.  The  Israelites, 
on  the  other  hand,  having  the  storm  on  their  rear,  were  less  troubled 
by  it,  and  derived  confidence  from  the  consciousness  of  this  Provi- 
dential aid.  The  confusion  became  great.  The  "rain  descended," 
the  four  rivulets  of  Megiddo  were  swelled  into  powerful  streams,  the 
torrent  of  the  Kishon  rose  into  a  flood,  the  plain  became  a  morass. 
The  chariots  and  the  horses,  which  should  have  gained  the  day  for 
the  Canaanites,  turned  against  them.  They  became  entangled  in  the 
swamp ;  the  torrent  of  Kishon — the  torrent  famous  through  former 


FIGHTING  STARS.  265 

ages — swept  them  away  in  its  furious  eddies ;  and  in  that  wild  con- 
fusion "  the  strength  "  of  the  Canaanites  "  was  trodden  down,"  and 
"  the  horsehoofs  stamped  and  struggled  by  the  means  of  the  plungings 
and  plungings  of  the  mighty  chiefs  "  in  the  quaking  morass  and  the 
rising  streams.  Far  and  wide  the  vast  army  fled,  far  through  the 
eastern  branch  of  the  plain  by  Endor.  There,  between  Tabor  and 
the  Little  Hermon,  a  carnage  took  place,  long  remembered,  in  which 
the  corpses  lay  fattening  the  ground '  (Psa.  Ixxxiii.  10). 

As  a  poetical  figure  of  this  storm,  the  above  passage  receives  illus- 
tration from  a  sentence  of  ^Eschylus,  who  represents  '  water  and  fire 
in  ruin  reconciled,'  as  fighting  against  the  Grecian  fleet.  It  is  helpful 
to  form  an  estimate  of  the  poetical  characteristics  of  Deborah's  Song, 
of  which  this  striking  sentence  forms  a  part.  '  Her  strains  are  bold, 
varied,  and  sublime ;  she  is  everywhere  full  of  abrupt  and  impas- 
sioned appeals  and  personifications ;  she  bursts  away  from  earth  to 
heaven,  and  again  returns  to  human  things.  She  touches  now  upon 
the  present,  now  dwells  upon  the  past,  and  closes  at  length  with  the 
grand  promise  and  result  of  all  prophecy,  and  of  all  the  dealings  of 
God's  providence,  that  the  wicked  shall  be  overthrown,  while  the 
righteous  shall  ever  triumph  in  Jehovah's  name.'  To  such  an  exalted 
poetical  genius  such  a  figure  as  that  of  stars  fighting  would  not  appear 
extravagant. 

But  the  figure  rests  on  curious  notions  of  the  relations  of  the  stars 
to  clouds  and  storms.  Our  notions  of  the  immense  distances  of  the 
stars  had  not  then  been  reached  Stars  and  clouds,  being  both  in  the 
visible  heavens,  were  thought  to  be  connected,  and  it  was  easy  to 
imagine  the  movements  of  the  stars  being  the  cause  of  the  storms. 

But  there  must  have  been  a  very  general  idea  that  the  stars  were 
directly  concerned  with  the  events  of  earth.  The  stars  had  come  to 
be  thought  of  as  in  some  mysterious  way  the  rulers  of  men's  lives. 
This  common  astrological  notion  may  be  thought  of  as  giving  shape 
to  the  expressions  of  the  poet,  but  we  need  not  go  so  far  as  from  a 
poetical  expression  to  infer  the  religious  belief  of  the  poetess. 

If  an  astrological  basis  for  the  figure  can  be  recognised,  importance 
will  be  felt  to  attach  to  a  note  given  by  Stanley^  who  says  :  c  I  have 
taken  verse  20  as  it  is  usually  rendered,  as  if  "against."  But  the 
ambiguity  of  the  original  "  with,"  combined  with  the  repetition  of  the 
word  "  fought "  from  the  previous  verses,  suggests  the  possibility  that 
what  is  meant  is  the  contrast  between  the  fighting  of  the  stars  for 
Sisera,  and  the  flood  of  the  Kishon  against  him.'  Following  this 
hint,  we  get  quite  a  new  explanation.  Deborah  may  be  satirizing  the 
dependence  of  Sisera  on  his  omens  and  oracles.  Generals  and  kings 


266      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

consulted  the  astrologers  and  the  star-gazers  before  entering  on  their 
expeditions ;  and,  no  doubt,  they  had  encouraged  Sisera.  Neverthe- 
less, God  fought  for  Israel,  and  conquered  the  army  for  which, 
according  to  the  notions  of  the  times,  even  the  stars  were  fighting. 

Bertheau,  Bachmann,  and  others,  take  the  figure  as  simply  expres- 
sive of  Divine  assistance.  *  Filled  with  the  thoughts  of  God's 
wonderful  aid,  and  venturing  under  the  impulses  of  a  bold  enthusiasm 
to  give  definite  representation  of  His  distinctly  recognised  yet  mys- 
terious work  on  earth  and  in  the  midst  of  men,  it  is  to  her  as  if  the 
heavens,  the  eternal  dwelling-place  of  the  holy  God,  had  bowed 
themselves  down  to  earth,  or — to  use  the  language  of  the  text — as  if 
the  stars,  forsaking  their  usual  orbits,  had  fought  against  Sisera.  See 
the  language  of  Psalm  xviii.' 

Lange  says  what  we  cannot  fully  follow :  '  Consistently  with 
Israelitish  conceptions,  the  help  of  the  stars  can  only  be  understood 
of  their  shining.' 

Ewald  is  somewhat  vague  :  '  Then  ensued  a  concussion  whose 
violence  and  decisive  force  could  not  be  better  depicted  than  by  the 
figure  in  the  song.  For  it  might  indeed  well  appear  as  if  only 
supernal,  heavenly  powers  could  thus  put  to  flight  one  who  possessed 
the  prestige  of  victory,  and  led  such  vast  forces  to  battle.' 

An  ingenious  explanation  has  been  given  by  an  English  clergyman. 
The  season  was  probably  that  of  the  autumn  storms,  which  occur 
early  in  November.  At  this  time  meteoric  showers  are  commonest, 
and  are  remarkably  fine  in  effect  seen  in  the  evening  light  at  a  season 
when  the  air  is  specially  clear  and  bright.  The  scene  presented  by 
the  falling  fiery  stars,  as  the  defeated  host  fled  away  by  night,  is  one 
very  striking  to  the  fancy,  and  it  would  form  a  fine  subject  for  an 
artist's  pencil.  (From  C.  R.  Conder.) 

Making  Arrows  Bright. 

EZKKIEL  xxi.  21  :'  For  the  king  of  Babylon  stood  at  the  parting  of  the  way,  at 
the  head  of  the  two  ways,  to  use  divination  :  he  made  his  arrows  bright,  he  con- 
sulted with  images,  he  looked  in  the  liver.'  Rev.  Ver.  :  '  He  shook  the  arrows  to 
and  fro.' 

Question. — Can  the  methods  of  ancient  divination  be  known  ? 

Answer. — No  real  importance  attaches  to  this  subject ;  it  can 
have  only  an  archaeological  interest.  A  student  of  human  nature 
may  be  anxious  to  know  the  various  constitutions  that  are  easily 
deluded,  and  the  variety  of  forms  that  delusion  may  take ;  but  no 
Scriptural  importance  attaches  to  such  inquiries. 

The  above  passage  has  been  variously  translated  or  paraphrased. 


MAKING  ARROWS  BRIGHT.  267 

Geikie's  translation  is  suggestive  :  '  For  the  King  of  Babylon  stands 
at  the  parting  of  the  roads,  at  the  head  of  the  two  ways,  to  use 
divination  as  to  which  he  should  take.  He  shakes  in  a  quiver  the 
two  arrows,  marked  Ammon  and  Jerusalem,  to  see  which  will  be 
drawn  out  first  by  one  blindfolded  ;  he  consults  his  idols  ;  he  looks 
at  the  liver  of  the  sacrifices.  In  his  right  hand — the  fortunate  one — 
is  already  the  arrow  marked  "  Jerusalem,"  which  has  been  drawn  by 
him  from  the  quiver.'  Geikie  says  of  this  shaking  the  arrows :  '  It 
was  a  common  form  of  divination  among  the  heathen  Arabs.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  tells  us  that  '  Pocock  describes  it  at 
length.  Before  undertaking  a  journey,  marrying  a  wife,  and  entering 
upon  any  important  business,  it  was  usual  to  place  in  some  vessel 
three  arrows,  on  one  of  which  was  written,  "  My  God  orders  me ;" 
on  the  other,  "  My  God  forbids  me ;"  on  the  third  was  no  inscrip- 
tion. These  three  arrows  were  shaken  together  until  one  came  out ; 
if  it  was  the  first,  the  thing  was  to  be  done ;  if  the  second,  it  was  to 
be  avoided ;  if  the  third,  the  arrows  were  again  shaken  together, 
until  one  of  the  arrows  bearing  a  decided  answer  should  come  forth. 
The  method  of  obtaining  an  omen  by  shaking  lots  together  in  a 
helmet  was  familiar  to  the  ancient  Greeks.' 

Divination  by  shooting  arrows  was  very  common.  Many  were 
shot,  and  the  march  of  an  army  was  prosecuted  in  the  direction  in 
which  the  greatest  number  fell.  Or  the  arrows  were  marked  with 
the  names  of  devoted  cities,  and  that  was  first  attacked  the  name  of 
which  was  first  drawn.  Divination  by  rods  was  practised  in  this 
manner  :  The  staff  was  placed  upright,  and  then  allowed  to  fall,  and 
the  decision  of  the  course  of  an  army,  etc.,  was  according  as  the  staff 
fell. 

The  different  systems  are  detailed  in  Cicero's  treatise,  '  De  Divina- 
tione.'  Generally  they  were  divided  into  the  following  branches : 
aeromancy,  or  divination  by  the  air ;  astrology ',  by  the  heavens ; 
augury,  by  birds,  etc. ;  arithnomancy,  by  numbers ;  capnomancy,  by 
the  smoke  of  sacrifices ;  cheiromancy r,  by  the  lines  on  the  palms  of 
the  hands ;  geomancy,  by  observing  cracks  or  clefts  in  the  earth ; 
haru spicy ^  by  inspecting  the  bowels  of  animals ;  horoscopy^  marking 
the  position  of  the  heavens  when  a  person  is  born  ;  hydromancy,  by 
water  ;  and  pyromancy ',  by  fire. 


268      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
Consul ters   of  Familiar  Spirits. 

DEUTERONOMY  xviii.  n  :  '  Or  a  consulter  with  a  familiar  spirit.'     R.V. 

Difficulty. — Such  a  description,  made  without  qualification :,  suggests 
the  belief  of  the  age  that  there  were  '•familiar  spirits? 

Explanation. — That  undoubtedly  was  the  common  belief  of 
ancient  times.  Such  persons  as  we  now  call  *  mediums '  would,  in 
former  ages,  be  regarded  as  being  possessed  and  used  by  some  spirit. 
Indeed,  the  spiritualist  notions  of  modern  times  are  but  a  reproduc- 
tion, with  marked  characteristics  for  this  age,  of  the  old-world 
notions. 

'  Magic,  as  a  science,  was  supposed  to  depend  on  the  influence  of 
evil  spirits,  or  the  spirits  of  the  dead.  In  early  times  all  who  engaged 
in  the  study  of  natural  phenomena  were  accounted  magicians,  the 
term  being  thus  used  in  a  good  sense,  nearly  equivalent  to  the  word 
philosophers.  Magic  has  been  divided  into  natural,  which  consists 
in  the  application  of  natural  causes  to  produce  wonderful  phenomena  ; 
planetary,  which  assigns  either  to  the  planets,  or  to  spirits  residing  in 
them,  an  influence  over  the  affairs  of  men  ;  and  diabolical,  which 
invokes  the  aid  of  demons  to  accomplish  supernatural  effects. 

Our  translation  '  familiar  spirit '  embodies  the  superstition  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  that  demons  attended  on  favoured  persons.  Some- 
times the  name  was  applied  to  the  person  considered  as  instructed 
and  inspired  by  the  demon. 

Possibly  persons  are  meant  who,  by  means  of  ventriloquism,  pre- 
tended to  converse  with  their  '  familiars,'  and  to  receive  audible 
responses  from  them.  '  Even  the  wise  Socrates  laid  claim  to  the  aid 
of  some  such  spirit.' 

Dr.  Ginsburg  says  :  '  This  phrase  represents  the  single  word  oboth 
in  the  original,  and  the  translators  of  our  Authorised  Version,  by 
adopting  it,  implied  that  those  who  practised  this  craft  were  supposed 
to  be  attended  by  an  invisible  spirit  who  was  subject  to  their  call  to 
supply  them  with  supernatural  information.  According  to  the 
authorities  during  the  second  Temple,  it  denotes  one  who  has  a 
spirit  speaking  from  under  his  armholes,  or  chest,  with  a  hollow 
voice,  as  if  it  came  out  of  a  bottle,  which  is  the  meaning  of  ob  in 
Job  xxxii.  1 9.  They  identified  it  with  the  spirit  of  Python,  by  which 
the  ancient  Chaldee  Version  renders  it.' 

When  we  remember  the  hold  which  popular  superstitions  have  even 
in  these  modern  scientific  days,  and  the  trick  of  personifying  every- 
thing which  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  imaginative  and  unscientific 


O  UTMOST  PARTS  OF  HE  A  YEN.  269 

times,  we  cannot  wonder  that  the  claim  of  the  magicians  to  work  by 
the  agencies  of  '  familiar  spirits '  was  so  generally  recognised.  We 
need  not  admit  that  there  was  any  truth  in  their  claims  ;  as  scientific 
explanations  can  be  given  of  all  their  characteristic  features  and 
devices.  We  may  regard  them  as  having  been  in  part  deceivers,  and 
in  part  self-deceived. 

Outmost  Parts  of  Heaven. 

DEUTERONOMY  xxx.  4  :  '  If  any  of  thine  be  driven  out  unto  the  outmost  parts 
of  heaven.' 

Question. — On  what  notion  of  the  shape  of  the  earth  is  this  figure 
based  1 

Answer. — The  Revised  Version  renders  this  sentence  thus  :  '  If 
any  of  thine  outcasts  be  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  heaven.'  Nehemiah, 
recalling  this  sentence  in  his  prayer,  gives  it  thus :  '  Though  there 
were  of  you  cast  out  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  heaven '  (Neh. 
i.  9).  And  our  Lord  used  a  similar  expression  (Matt  xxiv.  31), 
*  From  the  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other.' 

The  words  are  to  be  regarded  as  poetical,  but  poetical  figures 
depend  on  received  notions  and  sentiments ;  they  would  not  be 
effective  for  their  age  if  they  did  not  embody  the  commonly-received 
ideas  of  their  age.  Until  men's  mere  observations  could  be  scientifi- 
cally corrected,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  looked  upon  the 
earth  as  a  level  plane,  and  the  blue  sky  as  a  solid  arch,  the  horizon 
being  the  place  where  this  arch  touched  the  earth.  That  is  the  first 
notion  of  a  child  still,  and  that  must  have  been  the  notion  of  the 
child-ages.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  '  outmost  parts  of  heaven  ' 
would  be  the  parts  nearest  to  the  horizon  edge. 

It  has  further  to  be  noticed  that,  in  later  times,  Palestine  was  con- 
ceived to  be  the  centre  of  the  earth,  and  centre  of  the  sky-dome. 
The  *  outmost  parts '  were,  therefore,  the  outer  rim  of  the  circle  of 
which  Palestine  was  the  centre,  so  it  expressed  the  idea  of  '  uttermost 
distance.' 

*  The  word  rdkia  in  Genesis,  which  we  translate  "  firmament," 
properly  signifies  solid  surface,  and  the  Jews  imagine  the  blue  of  the 
sky  to  be  solid.'  '  The  earth  was,  to  the  Jews,  as  to  the  whole  ancient 
world,  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and  all  the  stars  revolved  around 
that  immovable  centre.' 

Dr.  Stapfer  gives  a  careful  view  of  the  ideas  entertained  in  the 
time  of  Christ,  but  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  recover,  with  pre- 
cision, the  views  of  the  Hebrews  of  the  time  of  Moses.  The  later 


270      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

views,  however,  suggest  the  earlier.  He  says  :  '  The  Jew  looks  upon 
the  earth  as  a  circular  plane.  God  is  seated  above  this  plane,  the 
circumference  of  which  had  been  originally  traced  by  Him  on  the 
abyss.  The  four  cardinal  points  are  called  the  ends  of  the  heavens. 
Jerusalem  is  in  the  centre  of  this  round  flat  disc  which  forms  the 
earth.  The  surface  of  this  plane  is  divided  into  two  parts — the  land 
of  Israel,  and  that  which  is  not  the  land  of  Israel.  .  .  .  The  land  of 
Israel  was  in  the  centre  of  the  disc,  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the 
world.  At  the  edge  of  the  disc  was  the  sea,  the  great  sea  upon 
which  no  one  had  yet  ventured  far.  It  encircled  the  round  plane, 
and  as  it  washed  the  shores  of  pagan  countries,  these  were  sometimes 
called  "  the  region  of  the  sea."  Rabbi  Solomon  said :  "  All  the 
outer  region  is  called  the  region  of  the  sea,  with  the  exception  of 
Babylon " ;  and  Rabbi  Nissim  says :  "  It  is  imperative  to  call  all 
that  is  outside  the  land  of  Israel  the  region  of  the  sea."  It  is  impos- 
sible to  say  what  idea  the  Jew  had  of  the  size  of  the  disc  of  the  earth 
It  is  evident  that  the  geography  of  the  Jews  was  like  that  of  other 
ancient  nations.  It  had  no  surer  basis  than  the  direct  testimony  of 
the  senses  and  childish  observation.' 

Ueberweg  reminds  us  that  {  Philosophy  as  science  could  originate 
neither  among  the  peoples  of  the  north,  who  were  eminent  for 
strength  and  courage,  but  devoid  of  culture ;  nor  among  the 
Orientals,  who,  though  susceptible  of  the  elements  of  higher  culture, 
were  content  simply  to  retain  them  in  a  spirit  of  passive  resignation ; 
but  only  among  the  Hellenes  (Greek  races),  who  harmoniously  com- 
bined the  characteristics  of  both.  The  Romans,  devoted  to  practical, 
and  particularly  to  political,  problems,  scarcely  occupied  themselves 
with  philosophy  except  in  the  appropriation  of  Hellenic  ideas,  and 
scarcely  attained  to  any  productive  originality  of  their  own.  The 
so-called  philosophy  of  the  Orientals  lacks  in  the  tendency  to  strict 
demonstration,  and  hence  in  scientific  character.  Whatever  philo- 
sophical elements  are  discoverable  among  them  are  so  blended 
with  religious  notions,  that  a  separate  exposition  is  scarcely 
possible.' 

As  an  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  book  of  an  age  reflects 
the  current  notions  of  the  age  in  which  it  was  written,  reference  may 
be  made  to  the  Book  of  Enoch.  '  The  writer  is  evidently  under  the 
influence  of  Greek  mythology.  Moreover,  he  mixes  up  imagination 
and  reality,  and  so  completely  confounds  his  individual  fancies  with 
the  geographical  notions  of  his  contemporaries,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  separate  them.  He  is  fascinated  with  the  number  seven,  anc 
speaks  of  seven  great  rivers  which  water  the  earth.  The  earth  itsell 


COMMUNICA TIONS  THROUGH  DREAMS.        2 7 1 

is  composed  of  seven  islands  that  have  arisen  out  of  the  heart  of  the 
sea.  He  thinks  the  sun  sets  each  evening  in  an  ocean  of  fire  in 
which  are  the  dead.' 

The  movements  of  the  sun  and  moon,  and  also  of  the  stars,  must 
have  been  a  constant  source  of  wonder  in  early  times.  How  the 
sun  could  get  from  one  side  of  the  sky-dome  to  the  other  during 
each  night  must  have  sorely  puzzled  them.  They  could  only 
imagine  and  invent  extraordinary  solutions  of  what  was  a  hopeless 
problem  until  a  proper  conception  of  the  solar  system  had  been 
arrived  at. 

Communications  through  Dreams. 

I  KINGS  iii.  5:  'In  Gibeon  the  Lord  appeared  to  Solomon  in  a  dream  by 
night.' 

Difficulty. — The  mediums  of  Divine  communication  with  men  vary 
greatly,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  rule  guiding  the  selection  of  a  medium 
in  any  particular  case. 

Explanation. — Certainly  the  principles  on  which  God  has 
selected  His  methods  of  communication  with  men  have  never  been 
discovered.  There  appears,  however,  to  be  some  good  ground  for 
the  suggestion  that  dreams  were  the  agencies  preferred  in  the  case  of 
individuals  outside  the  Jewish  covenant,  or  of  individuals  removed 
from  the  ordinary  Jewish  relationships.  We  should  recognise  estab- 
lished modes  of  communication,  through  Urim  and  through  prophets, 
and  also  special  modes  of  communication,  which  were  by  vision  or 
dream,  the  line  of  demarcation  between  these  two  modes  being  very 
difficult  to  trace.  Possibly  we  may  understand  vision  as  belonging 
to  the  day-time,  and  dream  as  belonging  to  the  night-time.  In  either 
case  the  man  sees  and  hears  what  has  no  corresponding  material 
form  and  substance,  so  he  receives  it  as  a  Divine,  a  spiritual,  com- 
munication. 

A  study  of  this  difficulty  will  be  aided  by  an  examination  of  the 
cases  of  dream-revelation  recorded  in  the  Sacred  Word  :  Abime- 
lech,  Gen.  xx.  3-7  ;  Laban,  Gen.  xxxi.  24 ;  Pharaoh's  butler  and 
baker,  Gen.  xl.  5-19  ;  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli.  1-7  ;  Midianite,  Judg. 
vii.  13-15;  Nebuchadnezzar,  Dan.  ii.  i,  31;  iv.  5.  8;  Wise  Men, 
Matt.  ii.  n,  12  ;  Pilate's  wife,  Matt,  xxvii.  19.  All  these  are  cases 
outside  the  Hebrew  covenant. 

Cases  which  must  be  more  or  less  clearly  regarded  as  within  the 
Jewish  covenant  are  the  following:  Jacob,  Gen.  xxviii.  12;  Gen. 
xxxi.  10  •  his  son  Joseph,  Gen.  xxxvii.  5-9  ;  Solomon,  i  Kings 


272      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

iii.  5-15  ;  Daniel,  ch.  vii.  ;  Joseph,  the  reputed  father  of  our  Lord, 
Matt.  i.  20,  2i  ;  ii.  13,  19,  20. 

If  we  regard  dreams  as  being  the  ordinary  operation  of  the  mind 
severed  from  the  control  of  the  will,  we  can  readily  understand  how 
God  can  take  the  place  of  the  sleeping  will,  and  guide  the  selec- 
tions and  adjustments  of  the  things  brought  up  by  the  mind  so  as 
to  convey  His  will  to  men.  That  God  has  done  this  leaves  it  open 
to  say  that  it  may  please  Him  to  do  this  still.  But  we  should  ever 
keep  in  mind  that  this  is  the  time  of  '  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,' 
and  as  God  is  now  pleased  to  guide  our  thoughts,  He  does  not  need 
to  fashion  our  dreams. 

'  In  an  early  and  simple  age  of  the  world  dreams  were  held  in 
high  account,  as  giving  clear  and  trustworthy  intimations  of  coming 
events,  it  being  thought,  as  Homer  says,  that  they  were  from  Jupiter. 
Hence,  in  Scripture  great  events  are  made  to  turn  on  dreams,  and 
their  interpretation.  Before  superstition  had  begun  to  abuse  the  best 
things  and  debase  the  purest,  dreams  may  have  been  no  unsuitable 
medium  of  communication  between  God  and  man.' 

It  is  probably  true,  as  has  been  said,  that  '  dreams,  as  means  of 
revelation,  are  almost  always  referred  to  the  periods  in  which  God's 
servants  had  but  the  earliest  and  most  imperfect  knowledge  of  Him.' 
The  selection  of  this  mode  of  communication  in  the  case  of  Solomon 
suggests  that  he  was  officially ',  rather  than  personally,  godly. 


Heavenly  Bodies  as  Figures  of  Earthly  Calamities. 

ISAIAH  xiii.  10  :  '  For  the  stars  of  heaven  and  the  constellations  thereof  shall 
not  give  their  light  ;  the  sun  shall  be  darkened  in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon 
shall  not  cause  her  light  to  shine.' 

Question. —  Will  astrological  notions  explain  these  figures  ? 

Answer. — They  depend  rather  on  popular  superstitions  and 
alarms  than  on  astrological  ideas.  Eclipses  of  sun  and  moon,  con- 
junctions of  stars,  and  what  are  known  as  *  falling  stars,'  created  the 
greatest  excitement  and  fear,  as  indeed  they  do  still  in  heathen  lands. 
It  became,  therefore,  an  easy  thing  to  use  these  heavenly  signs  as 
indicative  of  commotions  and  troubles  among  the  nations. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  says :  '  Such  descriptions  as  these  betoken  a 
state  of  national  confusion  and  panic  like  that  which  would  be 
caused  by  the  darkening  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  to  the  contempla- 
tion of  which  the  Babylonians  were  addicted  for  purposes  of  divina- 
tion.' 

Henderson,  writing  on  this  verse,  says :  c  A  fine  specimen  of  the 


HEA  VENL  Y  BODIES.  273 

figurative  manner  in  which  the  Hebrew  prophets  depict  the  horrors 
of  national  calamity.  The  metaphors  of  light  and  darkness  to  express 
prosperity  and  adversity  are  quite  common  ;  but  when  the  effect  is 
to  be  heightened,  the  writer  represents  the  sources  of  light  as  being 
themselves  affected,  and  their  splendour  as  either  increased  or  com- 
pletely obscured.' 

The  Chaldseans  early  marked  out  the  heavens  into  groups  or  con- 
stellations. The  word  translated  '  constellations '  in  this  text  is, 
literally,  *  the  Orions,'  that  is,  Orion  and  similar  constellations,  or 
remarkable  groups  of  fixed  stars.  In  the  Persian  mythology  Orion  is 
Nimrod,  the  founder  of  Babel,  who  was  translated  from  earth  to  the 
position  which  he  now  occupies  in  the  starry  heavens.  A  similar 
belief  appears  to  have  been  popular  among  other  ancient  nations. 
The  name  by  which  the  Arabs  designate  this  constellation  is  '  the 
Giant '  (Gen.  x.  8,  9).  They  also  give  him  Sirius  as  a  dog  for  his 
companion,  which  furnishes  another  point  of  coincidence  with  the 
Scripture  account  of  Nimrod's  favourite  pursuit. 

Clericus  distinctly  connects  this  verse  with  Babylonian  astrology 
and  even  astrolatry  (star-idolatry) ;  he  translates  thus  :  '  The  stars  of 
heaven  which  are  even  their  confidence.'  Malvenda  also  supposes  a 
special  allusion  to  the  astrological  belief  and  practice  of  the  Baby- 
lonians. Vitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the  image  here 
presented  to  be  that  of  a  terrific  storm,  veiling  the  heavens  and  con- 
cealing its  luminaries.  But  this  is  too  prosaic. 

On  the  similar  figures  as  used  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xxiv.  29),  Dean 
Plumptre  remarks :  *  The  words  reproduce  the  imagery  in  which 
Isaiah  had  described  the  day  of  the  Lord's  judgment  upon  Babylon, 
and  may  naturally  receive  the  same  symbolic  interpretation.  Our 
Lord  speaks  here  in  language  as  essentially  apocalyptic  as  that  of  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John  (Rev.  viii.  12),  and  it  lies  in  the  very  nature 
of  such  language  that  it  precludes  a  literal  interpretation.  Even  the 
common  speech  of  men  describes  a  time  of  tribulation  as  one  in 
which  the  "  skies  are  dark  "  and  "  the  sun  of  a  nation's  glory  sets  in 
gloom  " ;  and  the  language  of  Isaiah,  of  St.  John,  and  of  our  Lord,  is 
but  the  expansion  of  that  familiar  parable.  Sun,  moon,  and  stars 
may  represent,  as  many  have  thought,  kingly  power,  and  the  spiritual 
influence  of  which  the  Church  of  Christ  is  the  embodiment,  and  the 
illuminating  power  of  those  who  "  shine  as  lights  in  the  world " 
(Phil.  ii.  15);  but  even  this  interpretation  is,  it  may  be,  over-precise 
and  technical,  and  the  words  are  better  left  in  their  dim  and  terrible 
vagueness.' 

There  is  a  largeness,  unrestrainedness,  almost  unnaturalness  (at 

18 


274     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

least,  from  our  points  of  view)  in  Eastern  metaphor,  which  makes  the 
figurative  element  in  Scripture  very  difficult  for  us  to  deal  with. 
JDr.  E.  Stapfer  well  illustrates  the  extravagant  notions  of  Messianic 
times  which  prevailed  in  the  ancient  Jewish  nation,  and  intense  and 
exaggerated  figures  and  metaphors  precisely  suited  the  prevailing 
moods.  *  The  people  looked  forward  with  dread  to  the  coming  of 
the  Messianic  era.  They  were  afraid  of  seeing  the  wars  of  Gog  and 
Magog  which  the  scribes  predicted  as  its  precursor.  All  looked  for 
fearful  calamities.  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Abena  said  :  "  When  ye  shall 
see  nations  rising  up  one  against  the  other,  then  look  for  Messiah  to 
follow ;  and  ye  may  know  that  this  is  true  by  this  token — that  the 
same  thing  was  done  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  for  then  the  nations 
rose  up  against  one  another,  and  there  came  a  Redeemer  for  Abraham. 
In  the  week  of  years  in  which  the  Son  of  David  shall  come  there  will 
be  in  the  first  year  abundance  of  rain  upon  one  city  and  drought 
upon  another.  In  the  second  year  the  arrows  of  famine  will  go 
abroad.  In  the  third  there  will  be  a  great  famine,  and  men,  women, 
and  children  will  die,  as  well  as  the  saints  and  the  rich ;  and  there 
will  be  a  judgment  of  forgetfulness  upon  those  that  study  the  law. 
In  the  fourth  year  there  will  be  abundance  for  some  and  barrenness 
for  others.  In  the  fifth  year  a  great  abundance  ;  and  they  shall  eat, 
drink,  and  rejoice,  and  the  law  shall  be  again  held  in  honour  among 
those  who  teach  it.  In  the  sixth  year  voices  will  be  heard.  In  the 
seventh  year  wars  will  break  out,  and  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  year 
the  Son  of  David  will  appear."  The  Jewish  poet  excels  in  describing 
the  windy  storm  and  tempest ;  he  scarcely  glances  at  Nature  under 
any  other  aspect.  The  contemporaries  of  Christ  portrayed  in  eloquent 
language  the  coming  in  of  the  Messianic  era,  but  always  under  one 
aspect,  speaking  of  the  elements  being  dissolved,  the  stars  falling,  the 
earth  being  burnt  up.'  As  a  specimen  of  the  writing  of  these  times 
the  Book  of  Enoch  may  be  mentioned.  '  The  style  of  this  work  is 
extravagant  to  a  degree.  All  the  images  are  exaggerated.  Every- 
thing is  on  a  grander  scale  than  nature.' 

Seeking  the   Seer. 

I  SAMUEL  ix.  6  :  '  Behold  now,  there  is  in  this  city  a  man  of  God,  and  he  is  a 
man  that  is  held  in  honour  ;  and  all  that  he  saith  cometh  surely  to  pass  :  now  let 
us  go  thither ;  peradventure  he  can  tell  us  concerning  our  journey  whereon  we  go.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  strange  -thus  to  find  Samuel  only  known  as  an 
Oracle. 

Explanation. — This  difficulty  is  increased  when  we  realize  that 
the  home  of  Saul  was  at  no  great  distance  from  the  usual  abode  of 


SEEKING  THE  $EER.  275 

Samuel.  Possibly  we  have  here  onl^an  illustration  of  the  familiar 
proverb,  'A  prophet  is  not  without  honour,  save  in  his  own 
country.'  Samuel  may  have  been /ell  known  throughout  the  land, 
and  yet  very  imperfectly  known  ^  estimated  by  his  actual  neigh- 
bours. 

But  explanation  may  be  sugared  along  another  line.  The  servant 
does  not  give  a  full  account  ^Samuel  to  his  young  master,  he  only 
deals  with  the  precise  matt/ that  is  before  him.  The  minds  of  the 
two  men  were  concerned  /°out  the  lost  asses,  and  they  were  not, 
then,  specially  interested/1  Samuel  the  Judge  or  Samuel  the  Re- 
former ;  they  wanted  a  AJ  a  man  gifted  with  what  we  call  *  second 
sight,'  who  should  dire/  their  way.  To  this  one  point  the  servant 
directs  the  attention /the  master. 

Two  other  points/66^  consideration.  Young  Saul  was  evidently 
a  big  clumsy,  yepan(^some>  slow-minded  young  man,  not  in  the 
least  likely  to  tro/^e  himself  about  the  work  and  influence  of  Samuel. 
And  moreover/^16  events  which  had  brought  Samuel  into  public 
prominence  h^ 'occurred  years  before,  and  had  passed  almost  out  of 
memory.  'F  young  generation  only  vaguely  knew  about  the 
prophet-jud/  There  had  been  no  miraculous,  or  even  specially 
remarkable eatures  aDout  his  teaching  or  his  magistracy  for  many 
years.  F  ^ad  become  one  of  the  regular  institutions  of  the 

country.  / 

Kirkfrick  supports  these  views.     '  It  seems  strange  that  Saul 

appare/v  knows  nothing  about  Samuel.  But  the  days  of  Samuel's 
greate  actiyity  were  long  past,  and  he  had  for  some  time  been  living 
in  Cc/Parative  retirement,  while  "  up  to  this  point  Saul  had  been  only 
the/y  an(^  retirmg  youth  of  the  family,  employed  in  the  common 
W(7of  the  farm,"  and  knowing  little  of  the  political  or  religious 
Cements  of  the  time.' 

/The  gifts  of  the  'seer'  may  be,  or  may  not  be,  what  we  understand 
N  miraculous.  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  some  men  and 
women  are  entrusted  in  a  natural  way  with  the  gift  of  '  second  sight.' 
And  this  may  have  been,  in  the  case  of  Samuel,  the  agency  which 
God  was  pleased  to  use  in  a  direct  way  as  the  medium  by  which  He 
communicated  His  will.  The  language  of  the  servant  certainly 
suggests  that  he  only  regarded  Samuel  as  a  seer  among  seers,  but  a 
seer  who  had  an  established  and  honourable  reputation.  There  are 
mysteries  of  mind ;  special  senses  given  to  some  men,  and  peculiar 
powers,  and  sensitivenesses,  characteristic  of  some  men,  which  must 
be  much  better  understood  before  we  can  rightly  judge  between  the 
miraculous  and  the  non-miraculous  in  any  given  case.  The  opinion 

18— 2 


276      HANDBOOK  Of  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  the  servant  is  only  interesting  as  an  indication  of  public  sentiment. 
What  he  thought  of  Samuel  toes  not  decide  for  us  what  Samuel 
was. 

Geikie  has  an  interesting  passage  On  the  ideas  of  the  age  concern- 
ing Oracles  and  Prophets.     'The^rophet  is  essentially  an  appear- 
ance peculiar  to  early  ages,  and  to  ti*  simpie  state  of  society  before 
the  fulness  of  revelation  has  yet  bee,  made  known.     The  ancient 
world  at  large  was  marked  by  its  eager  rfforts  to  penetrate  the  secrets 
of  the  higher  powers  which  control  hum^  destiny.     Nothing  impor- 
tant was  undertaken  either  in  public  or  pi7ate  Hfe  without  inquiring 
the  will  of  the  gods   through   seers,    divers,  augurs,  oracles,    or 
prophets,  who  claimed  ability  to  satisfy  this^ravjng      gut  there  was 
a  signal  difference  between  the  representative  of  tjje  heathen  gods 
and  those  of  Jehovah.     To  the  former  the  ind.ations  of  tne  Divine 
will  were  read  in  the  phenomena  and  occurrence.of  outer  nature  and 
of  the  animal  world  ;  in  the  whispering  of  the  oakeaves  of  Dodona 
in  the  flight  of  birds,  in  the  motions  of  the  entraiLof  a  sacrifice  jn 
the  sounds  of  birds  or  beasts,  or  in  their  unexpec^  appearances 
But  in  the  true  religion  this  noble  instinct  was  met  or,  by  communi- 
cations made  from  the  unseen  God  through  the  spin  of  man  jj^s 
image  on  earth.' 

W.  J.  Deane,  after  referring  to  Saul's  proposal,  on  t,  fa[rd  fay  v 
that  they  should  return  home,  says :  '  The  servant,   hoiyer    con_ 
sidered  that  there  was  still  one  chance  left  of  recovers  tne  jogf. 
animals.     They  might  consult  a  wise  man,  and  ask  his  adv*      just; 
before  them  rose  the  hill  of  Ramathaim-Zophim,  and  the  ^ncjarit 
opportunely  remembered  that  in  that  city  dwelt  a  man  of  Goc^^y 
honoured  and  respected,  and  one  whose  statements  always  r>ve(j 
true ;  he  suggested  that  they  should  have  recourse  to  him  L~ore 
giving  up  the  quest  as  hopeless.     He  does  not  speak  as  if  he1(j 
known  Samuel  by  name,  and  Saul  seems  to  be  equally  ignor* 
One  calls  him  the  "  man  of  God,"  and  the  other  the  "  seer."     1* 
fact,  if  fact  it  were,  would  be  most  perplexing.     Gibeah  was  not  vei 
far  distant  from  Ramah ;  and  that  Samuel,  the  eminent  prophet,  anc 
the  chief  ruler  of  Israel,  should  have  been  unknown  by  name  to  Saul 
and  his  domestic  is  quite  incredible.     That  they  had  never  met 
before  is  plain  from  what  happened  subsequently,  when  Saul  speaks 
to  him  as  to  a  stranger,  and  inquires  the  way  to  the  seer's  house 
(i  Sam.  ix.  18) ;  but  how  are  we  to  account  for  this  apparent  ignor- 
ance?     Probably  the  personal  name  was  almost  forgotten  in  the 
office,  and  it  was  by  this  title  he  was  generally  known,  the  people 
near  Ramah  calling  him  "  the  seer,"  the  Benjamites  referring  to  him 


SEEKING  THE  SEER.  277 

as  the  "  man  of  God."  Another  alternative  is,  that  the  dialogue 
between  Saul  and  his  servant  is  imaginary,  founded  upon  the  facts 
which  came  afterwards  into  prominence,  and  not  to  be  taken  as 
literally  occurring.  ...  It  is  as  a  "wise  man"  that  the  attendant 
wishes  to  consult  Samuel — as  one  who,  by  his  more  than  human 
knowledge,  might  direct  them  in  their  perplexity.  ...  It  would 
appear  that  it  was  no  new  thing  to  resort  to  seers  for  consultation  in 
private  affairs,  and  that  it  was  customary  to  offer  a  present  on  such 
occasions.  Whether  the  practice  led  to  chicanery,  and  whether  there 
was  at  this  time  a  class  of  pretended  soothsayers,  cannot  be  decided. 
Saul  could  hardly  have  placed  Samuel  in  any  such  category,  though 
he  is  willing  to  appeal  to  him  on  a  business  which  any  mere  sooth- 
sayer might  have  decided.' 


SUB-SECTION  II. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  MEDICAL  SCIENCE. 


An  Incurable  Disease. 

2  CHRONICLES  xxi.  18  :  '  And  after  all  this  the  Lord  smote  him  in  his  bowels 
with  an  incurable  disease.' 

Question. — Can  this  disease  be  identified  and  described?  Was  it 
absolutely  incurable,  or  only  incurable  by  the  medical  skill  and  science  of 
that  day  ? 

Answer. — The  British  Medical  Journal  had  an  article  on  Ancient 
Medical  Art,  from  which  a  few  extracts  are  taken,  in  order  to  prepare 
for  a  consideration  of  these  questions.  *  Medical  art  was,  among  the 
Hebrews,  practised  from  early  times  by  a  special  profession — the 
Ropheim — and  is  already  mentioned  in  the  ancient  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  which  embodies  the  oldest  fundamental  laws  (Exod.  xxi.  19). 
They  may  possibly  have  derived  much  of  their  knowledge  from  the 
Egyptians,  famous  for  their  discovery  of  remedies  from  remote  ages, 
ind  for  their  medical  skill  generally ;  and  during  their  sojourn  in 
Sgypt  they  had  Hebrew  midwives  (Exod.  i.  15-20).  Their  art  seems, 
or  the  most  part,  to  have  been  limited  to  surgery  and  the  cure  of 
external  injuries  (comp.  Isa.  i.  6;  Ezek.  xxx.  21  ;  2  Kings  viii.  29; 
x.  15) ;  but  the  physicians,  many  of  whom  belonged  to  the  prophetic 
>rder  (2  Kings  iv.  33-36;  v.  10;  viii.  7  ;  xx.  7;  Isa.  xxxviii.  21), 
;njoyed  great  respect  and  confidence,  and  were  very  generally 


278      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

employed,  especially  after  the  time  of  the  exile,  when  even  the  smaller 
towns  had  their  medical  practitioners  (Jer.  viii.  22;  Sirach  xxxviii. 
1-15,  a  remarkable  passage;  Joseph.,  Vita,  72,  etc.),  though  the 
priestly  Book  of  Chronicles  severely  blames  King  Asa  for  "  not 
having  consulted  God,  but  the  physicians"  (2  Chron.  xvi.  12).  In 
later  times  the  priests  and  Levites,  who  officiated  barefooted  at  the 
Temple,  had  a  special  physician  ("medicus  viscerum  ")  to  cure  the 
colds  to  which  they  were  liable ;  the  Essenes  particularly  were  cele- 
brated for  their  knowledge  of  medicine  and  the  natural  sciences.' 

It  has  been  explained  that  '  the  art  with  the  Israelites  was  only  in 
its  infancy.  Individual  observations  and  scattered  experiences  formed 
its  substance ;  there  was  neither  the  induction  of  instances,  nor  the 
power  of  mind  requisite  to  form  an  art.  Medical  skill  was  restricted 
to  the  external  handling  of  serious  bodily  injuries,  and  to  the  know- 
ledge of  certain  simples,  of  whose  nature  and  working  only  a  rough 
and  vague  idea  was  held.  Chance  sometimes  threw  better  means  in 
the  way,  but  want  of  knowledge  could  turn  them  to  but  little  account. 
Gradually,  however,  there  was  gathered  a  small  treasure  of  skill  and 

of  resources,  which  was  applied  according  to  established  rules 

Some  of  the  precepts  of  the  law  rest  on  medical  knowledge  of  a 
more  or  less  accurate  nature,  in  judging  of  which  we  must  remember 
the  age,  climate,  and  race  to  which  these  precepts  pertain.' 

The  writer  in  Smith's  Dictionary  regards  the  illness  of  Jehoram  as 
a  severe  dysentery,  which  was  epidemic;  and  from  verse  15  ('Until 
thy  bowels  fall  out  by  reason  of  the  sickness  day  by  day ')  it  is 
assumed  that  the  peculiar  symptom  was  '  prolapsus  ani '  (Dr.  Mason 
Good  mentions  a  case  of  the  entire  colon  exposed).  Perhaps,  how- 
ever, it  was  what  is  known  as  diarrhoea  tubularis,  formed  by  the 
coagulation  of  fibrine  into  a  membrane  discharged  from  the  inner 
coat  of  the  intestines,  which  takes  the  mould  of  the  bowel,  and  is 
thus  expelled. 

Kitto  says :  '  Jehoram's  disease  is  probably  referable  to  chronic 
dysentery,  which  sometimes  occasions  an  exudation  of  fibrine  from 
the  inner  coats  of  the  intestines.  The  fluid  fibrine  thus  exuded 
coagulates  into  a  continuous  tubular  membrane,  of  the  same  shape 
as  the  intestine  itself,  and  as  such  is  expelled.  A  precisely  similar 
formation  of  false  membranes,  as  they  are  termed,  takes  place  in  the 
windpipe  in  severe  cases  of  croup.' 

Such  a  disease  would  certainly  be  regarded  as  incurable  in  those 
days ;  and  even  now  it  would  only  be  mastered  if  dealt  with  in  its 
earlier  stages.  The  language  of  Scripture  may  suggest  a  sudden 
form  of  disease,  and  one  of  an  acute  character ;  but  Bible  writers 


THE  INFECTION  OF  LEPROSY.  279 

prefer  to  recognise  in  it  a  disease  of  a  chronic  character.  Geikie  even 
goes  so  far  as  to  say,  *  Jehoram,  moreover,  seemed  in  his  own  person 
to  be  judged  and  punished  for  his  course  by  a  long  and  agonizing 
internal  disease  which  had  struck  him  down.  When,  therefore,  he 
died,  no  pretence  of  regret  was  heard  ;  the  customary  funeral  honours 
of  a  king  were  denied  him,  and  his  body,  refused  admission  to  the 
royal  tombs '  (possibly  on  account  of  the  offensive  character  of  his 
last  illness),  '  was  buried  in  a  separate  spot  inside  the  walls.'  Two 
years  is  mentioned  in  verse  19  as  the  length  of  the  disease,  but  this 
is  not  sufficient  basis  on  which  to  decide  its  chronic  character. 

If  not  absolutely  curable — and  this  cannot  be  decided  without 
more  minute  details  of  its  symptoms — the  patient  could  certainly, 
nowadays,  have  found  great  relief  through  medicine,  or  possibly 
through  surgical  skill. 

The  Infection  of  Leprosy. 

LEVITICUS  xiii.  46  :  '  All  the  days  wherein  the  plague  shall  be  in  him  he  shall 
be  defiled  ;  he  is  unclean  :  he  shall  dwell  alone ;  without  the  camp  shall  his 
habitation  be.' 

Question. — Has  modern  scientific  observation  and  study  settled  the 
question  of  the  infection,  or  contagiousness,  of  leprosy  ? 

Answer. — This  matter  is  still  disputable,  but  the  preponderating 
evidence  favours  the  view  that  it  is  not  contagious  in  the  ordinary 
and  popular  sense.  Trench's  note  is  familiar  to  Bible  students.  '  I 
allude  to  the  common  misapprehension  that  leprosy  was  catching 
from  one  person  to  another,  and  that  lepers  were  so  carefully  se- 
cluded from  their  fellow-men,  lest  they  might  communicate  the 
poison  of  the  disease  to  them,  as  in  like  manner  that  the  torn  gar- 
ment, the  covered  lip,  the  cry  "  Unclean,  unclean !"  were  warnings 
to  others  that  they  should  keep  aloof,  lest,  unawares  touching  the 
lepers,  or  drawing  into  too  great  a  nearness,  they  should  become 
partakers  of  their  disease.  ...  All  those  who  have  examined  into 
the  matter  the  closest  are  nearly  of  one  consent,  that  the  sickness 
was  incommunicable  by  ordinary  contact  from  one  person  to  another. 
A  leper  might  transmit  it  to  his  children,  or  the  mother  of  a  leper's 
children  might  take  it  from  him  ;  but  it  was  by  no  ordinary  contact 
transferable  from  one  person  to  another.  All  the  notices  in  the  Old 
Testament,  as  well  as  in  other  Jewish  books,  confirm  the  assertion 
that  we  have  here  something  quite  different  from  a  mere  sanitary 
regulation.  Thus,  where  the  law  of  Moses  was  not  observed,  no 
such  exclusion  necessarily  found  place.  Naaman  the  leper  com- 
manded the  armies  of  Syria  (2  Kings  v.  i) ;  Gehazi,  with  his  leprosy 


28o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

that  never  should  be  cleansed,  talked  familiarly  with  the  King  of 
apostate  Israel  (2  Kings  viii.  5).  And  even  where  the  law  of  Moses 
was  in  force,  the  stranger  and  the  sojourner  were  expressly  exempted 
from  the  ordinances  in  relation  to  leprosy,  which  could  not  have 
been  had  the  disease  been  contagious,  and  the  motives  of  the  leper's 
exclusion  been  not  religious  but  civil,  since  the  danger  of  the  spread- 
ing of  the  disease  would  have  been  equal  in  their  case  and  in  that 
of  native  Israelites.  How,  moreover,  should  the  Levitical  priests, 
had  the  disease  been  this  creeping  infection,  have  ever  themselves 
escaped  it,  obliged  as  they  were,  by  their  very  office,  to  submit 
the  leper  to  such  actual  handling  and  closest  examination  ?  Light- 
foot  can  only  explain  this  by  supposing  in  their  case  a  perpetual 
miracle.* 

In  a  note  the  Speaker's  Commentary  discusses  this  question,  treat- 
ing leprosy  under  the  scientific  term,  *  Elephantiasis ' :  '  But  the 
question  whether  Elephantiasis  is  contagious  or  not  is  one  of  the 
most  peculiar  interest  in  connection  with  the  Levitical  law.  The 
committee  of  the  College  of  Physicians  consider  that  the  weight  of 
evidence  is  decidedly  on  the  negative  side.  The  freedom  with 
which  lepers  often  live  with,  others  in  the  closest  domestic  relation 
indicates  that  common  opinion  practically  takes  the  same  view. 
Several  surgeons  are  said  to  have  wounded  themselves  in  the  dissec- 
tion of  leprous  bodies,  without  suffering  any  characteristic  injury. 
But  many  of  those  who  have  replied  to  the  Leprosy  Committee 
affirm  their  belief  that  the  disease  is  contagious  at  a  certain  stage — 
when  the  ulcers  are  running.  It  is  evident  that,  if  the  disease  is 
contagious,  a  very  rare  and  critical  concurrence  of  circumstances  is 
required  to  develop  the  contagion.  But  it  should  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  contagiousness  of  a  disease  cannot  be  disproved  by  the  mul- 
titude of  escapes,  if  there  are  a  few  well-attested  and  well-observed 
facts  in  its  favour.  It  cannot,  at  any  rate,  be  doubted  that  the  few 
Englishmen  who  have  suffered  from  Elephantiasis  have  always,  or 
nearly  always,  associated  with  leprous  people,  or  lived  in  leprous 
countries.  The  case  of  Dr.  Robertson,  who,  while  superintending 
the  leper-house  in  the  Seychelles  Islands,  became  a  leper,  is  a  very 
important  one.' 

Mr.  Wilson,  in  his  '  Notes  on  the  Granada  Hospital,'  says  :  '  An 
excellent  observer  in  Mauritius,  in  a  private  letter,  states  that  he 
has  personally  known  only  two  Europeans  affected  with  the  disease. 
Each  of  these  had  married  Creole  women,  apparently  free  from 
disease,  but  they  have  left  leprous  children.' 

H.  E.  W.  Grant,  private  secretary  to  the  Governor  of  Trinidad, 


THE  INFECTION  OF  LEPROSY.  281 

writes  as  follows  :  *  As  the  question  of  the  contagiousness  of  leprosy 
has  attracted  considerable  attention  of  late,  I  give  the  following  in- 
formation :  The  Cocorite  (leper)  Asylum  in  Trinidad  was  established 
in  1845.  The  normal  population  for  many  years  past  may  be 
roughly  estimated  at  about  200.  The  management  of  the  institution 
was  entrusted  to  a  staff  of  Dominican  sisters  in  1869,  and  it  has 
remained  in  the  hands  of  this  body  since  that  date.  No  sister 
attached  to  the  institution  has  ever  contracted  the  disease  of  leprosy. 
The  resident  superintendent,  who  resigned  last  year,  but  who  still 
lives  in  the  asylum,  has  never  quitted  its  precincts  for  a  day  since 
1869,  and  the  dispenser,  who  also  was  first  appointed  to  the  asylum 
twenty-one  years  ago,  has  only  been  absent  from  it  for  eight  days 
during  that  period.  Other  sisters  have  been  attached  to  the  asylum 
as  follows  :  two  for  fifteen  years,  two  for  thirteen,  one  for  twelve,  one 
for  ten,  one  for  nine,  one  for  eight,  and  two  for  six  years.' 

Dr.  Ginsburg  declares  firmly  that  there  was  no  fear  of  contagion 
on  the  part  of  the  authorities  who  had  personally  to  deal  with  this 
distemper. 

It  is  apparently  clear  that  leprosy  was  popularly  regarded  as  con- 
tagious ;  the  regulations  made  concerning  it  in  every  age  and  every 
land  certainly  suggest  this.  The  law  for  the  Synagogue  was  this : 
c  If  a  leper  comes  into  the  synagogue  he  has  to  sit  in  a  place  apart, 
raised  ten  spans  from  the  floor,  and  four  cubits  broad.  He  comes  in 
first,  and  goes  out  last.' 

In  his  latest  book,  Geikie  says  :  '  Lepers  are  found  over  the  whole 
country.  Precautions  are,  indeed,  taken  to  guard  the  healthy,  but 
as  leprosy  is  not  contagious,  these  are  in  reality  of  no  value.  In 
Bible  times,  anyone  thought  to  be  attacked  was  shut  up,  and  re- 
moved outside  the  city  on  the  disease  showing  itself,  he,  his  clothes, 
his  very  house,  and  everything  he  touched,  being  pronounced  un- 
clean. Nowadays,  he  may,  perhaps,  be  allowed  to  live  immediately 
inside  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  but  he  has  still  a  separate  dwelling 
assigned  him,  and  everyone  keeps  aloof  from  him  as  polluted  and 
dangerous.  Nor  will  anyone  touch  a  leper,  or  eat  with  him,  or  use 
anything  he  has  handled.  Arabs  thrust  a  leper  away  from  their 
encampments.' 

Harper  gives  a  curious  fact  illustrative  of  the  anxiety  of  the  people 
to  keep  leprosy  from  spreading :  '  An  English  resident  medical  man 
told  how  that  more  than  once  some  man  would  come  to  him  who 
had  been  driven  out  with  curses  from  his  village,  the  inhabitants  of 
which  declared  that  he  showed  signs  of  leprosy.  A  medical  examina- 
tion of  the  closest  nature  failed  to  show  any  spot  or  blemish,  and, 


282      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

obtaining  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  the  man  would  go  back  to  his 
village,  only  to  be  driven  out  again  by  its  residents,  and  ere  long 
that  man  did  show  the  leprous  sign,  and  became  a  complete  leper. 
What  enabled  those  ignorant  people  to  detect  the  very  first  signs 
of  the  disease  none  can  tell.'  But.  it  is  evident  that  they  feared 
contagion,  and  their  fear  could  only  have  been  based  on  ex- 
perience. 

Egyptian  Boils. 

EXODUS  ix.  1 1  :  '  And  the  Egyptians  could  not  stand  before  Moses  because  of 
the  boils  ;  for  the  boil  was  upon  the  magicians,  and  upon  all  the  Egyptians.' 

Question. — Are  we  to  understand  some  new  form  of  disease,  or 
an  exaggeration  of  an  ordinary  national  trouble  ? 

Answer. — Three  words  are  used  for  apparently  the  same  afflic- 
tion. Boils,  blains,  botch.  The  word  '  blains  '  is  found  in  Exod.  ix. 
9,  10,  where  it  is  associated  with  '  boils.'  '  It  shall  become  small 
dust  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  shall  be  a  boil  breaking  forth  with 
blains  upon  man  and  upon  beast  throughout  the  land  of  Egypt.' 
The  word  'botch  '  is  found  in  Deut.  xxviii.  27,  and  is  there  mentioned 
as  a  characteristic  Egyptian  disease.  *  The  Lord  will  smite  thee  with 
the  botch  of  Egypt  (various  reading,  "  boil "),  and  with  the  emerods, 
and  with  the  scab,  and  with  the  itch,  whereof  thou  canst  not  be 
healed.' 

Boils  and  tumours  are  common  in  hot  countries,  and  one  of  the 
causes  may  be  the  irritation  produced  by  the  particles  of  sand  in  the 
atmosphere.  It  has  been  declared  by  modern  science,  that  a  few 
handfuls  of  ashes  can  be  divided  into  particles  so  inconceivably 
minute  as  to  fill  the  air  over  a  whole  country.  And  Professor 
Tyndall's  experiments  incontestably  show  that  invisibly  small  particles 
may  be  poisonous  germs  of  infectious  plagues. 

Roberts,  who  writes  of  Hindoo  customs,  tells  us  that  '  when  the 
magicians  pronounce  an  imprecation  on  an  individual,  a  village,  or  a 
country,  they  take  ashes  of  cow's  dung  (or  from  a  common  fire)  and 
throw  them  in  the  air,  saying  to  the  objects  of  their  displeasure,  such 
a  sickness,  or  such  a  curse,  shall  surely  come  upon  you.' 

Some  identify  the  '  botch '  with  the  black  form  of  leprosy,  and 
speak  of  it  as  an  eruption  to  which  the  Egyptians  were  subject  at 
the  rising  of  the  Nile.  There  was  first  an  inflamed  ulcer  or  boil,  and 
then  the  pustules,  or  blains,  broke  out  upon  it.  *  Cutaneous  erup- 
tions of  extreme  severity  are  common  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
some  bearing  a  near  resemblance  to  the  symptoms  described  in  this 


EG  YPTIAN  BOILS.  283 

passage.  In  an  old  calendar  mention  is  made  of  several  contagious 
diseases  in  the  month  of  December.  The  analogy  of  natural  law  is 
still  preserved,  the  miracle  consisting  in  the  severity  of  the  plague, 
and  its  direct  connection  with  the  act  of  Moses.'  (Speaker's  Com- 
mentary.) 

Canon  Rawlinson  describes  the  disease  as  '  an  inflammation  pro- 
ducing pustules ;'  and  he  adds  :  '  Diseases  of  this  character  are  not 
uncommon  in  Egypt,  but  they  are  not  often  very  severe ;  nor  do 
they  attack  indifferently  man  and  beast.  The  miraculous  character 
of  the  plague  was  shown  (i)  by  its  being  announced  beforehand ;  (2) 
by  its  severity  (Exod.  ix.  n);  (3)  by  its  universality  ;  and  (4)  by  its 
extension  to  animals.'  '  Rashi  says  of  this  "  boil "  :  "  It  was  very 
bad,  being  moist  on  the  inside,  and  dry  outside."  A  learned  Dalma- 
tian Jew,  with  whom  I  have  read  this  passage,  tells  me  that  he  has 
seen  many  cases  of  this  kind  among  the  Hungarian  and  Polish  Jews, 
and  that  it  prevails  among  them,  being  traceable  partly  to  their  un- 
cleanliness.' 

Geikie  associates  the  act  of  Moses  with  a  well-known  Egyptian 
custom.  '  Handfuls  of  ashes  from  the  "  furnaces,"  it  may  be  the 
smelting  furnaces  for  iron — the  special  emblems  in  Scripture  of  the 
bitter  slavery  of  the  Hebrews — were  sprinkled  towards  heaven  in  the 
sight  of  Pharaoh ;  an  act  familiar  to  those  who  may  have  seen  it 
done,  though  the  import  could  not  for  the  moment  be  realized.  In 
various  Egyptian  towns,  sacred  to  Set  or  Typhon,  the  god  of  Evil — 
Heliopolis  and  Busiris,  in  the  Delta,  among  them — red-haired  and 
light-complexioned  men,  and  as  such,  foreigners,  perhaps  often 
Hebrews,  were  yearly  offered  in  sacrifice  to  this  hideous  idol.  After 
being  burnt  alive  on  a  high  altar,  their  ashes  were  scattered  in  the 
air  by  the  priests,  in  the  belief  that  they  would  avert  evil  from  all 
parts  whither  they  were  blown.  But  now,  the  ashes  thrown  into  the 
air  by  Moses,  instead  of  carrying  blessing  with  them,  fell  everywhere 
in  a  rain  of  blains  and  boils  on  the  people,  and  even  on  the  cattle 
which  the  murrain  had  spared.'  Possibly  in  vague  reference  to  this, 
Tacitus  says  :  '  Many  authors  agree  that  a  plague  which  made  the 
body  hideous  having  broken  out  in  Egypt,  the  King  Bocchoris,  on 
the  counsel  of  the  oracle  of  Ammon,  from  which  he  had  asked  what 
he  should  do,  was  ordered  to  purge  the  kingdom  of  those  thus 
afflicted,  and  to  send  them  away  to  other  countries,  as  hateful  to  the 
gods.' 

The  '  botch '  seems  to  mean  the  foul  ulcer  mentioned  by  Aretaeus, 
and  called  by  him  aphtha,  or  eschare.  He  ascribes  its  frequency  in 
Egypt  to  the  mixed  vegetable  diet  there  followed,  and  to  the  use  of 


284      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  turbid  water  of  the  Nile,  but  adds  that  it  is  common  in  Ccelo- 
Syria.  Advanced  cases  are  said  to  have  a  cancerous  aspect,  and 
some  even  class  it  as  a  form  of  cancer,  a  disease  dependent  on  faults 
of  nutrition. 

A  Disease  of  the  Feet. 

2  CHRONICLES  xvi.  12  :  '  And  in  the  thirty  and  ninth  year  of  his  reign  Asa  was 
diseased  in  his  feet ;  his  disease  was  exceeding  great  ;  yet  in  his  disease  he  sought 
not  to  the  Lord,  but  to  the  physicians.' 

Question. — Can  this  disease  be  identified  with  any  of  those  that 
afflict  men  in  our  time  ? 

Answer. — For  c  exceeding  great,'  some  would  read  '  which  moved 
upward,'  and  this  suggests  something  of  a  dropsical  character.  The 
parallel  passage,  i  Kings  xv.  23,  does  not  add  much  to  our  informa- 
tion :  '  Nevertheless  in  the  time  of  his  old  age  he  was  diseased  in  his 
feet.' 

All  that  can  be  said  is,  that  it  may  have  been  either  ozdema>  swel- 
ling, or  podagra,  gout.  The  former  is  common  in  aged  persons,  in 
whom,  owing  to  2he  difficulty  of  the  return  upwards  of  the  sluggish 
blood,  the  watery  part  stays  in  the  feet.  The  latter,  though  rare  in 
the  East  at  present,  is  mentioned  by  the  Talmudists,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  it  may  not  have  been  known  in  Asa's  time. 

Most  of  the  Bible  writers  identify  Asa's  disease  with  the  '  gout.' 
Geikie  says  :  '  At  the  close  of  a  long  and  prosperous  reign  of  forty- 
one  years,  King  Asa  died,  after  suffering  for  two  years  with  a  disease 
in  the  feet,  apparently  the  gout,  though  details  are  not  given.'  The 
word  commencing  the  sentence  in  i  Kings  xv.  23,  'nevertheless,' 
suggests  some  direct  connection  between  his  doings,  or  his  neglect- 
ings,  and  his  disease.  '  Nevertheless  '  sets  us  upon  thinking  that  he 
need  not  have  suffered  in  this  way  if  he  had  been  more  careful ;  and 
it  is  quite  usual  to  connect  the  gout  with  self-indulgence  in  meat  and 
drink. 

Job's  Disease. 

JOB  ii.  7,  8  :  'So  went  Satan  forth  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  smote 
Job  with  sore  boils  from  the  sole  of  his  foot  unto  his  crown.  And  he  took  him  a 
potsherd  to  scrape  himself  withal ;  and  he  sat  down  among  the  ashes.5 

Difficulty. — If  Job's  disease  be  identified  as  a  form  of  leprosy,  it 
becomes  strange  that  no  intimation  is  given  of  any  miraculous  heal- 
ing. 

Explanation. — There  is  no  absolute  necessity  for  any  such 
identification.  The  descriptions  of  the  symptoms  of  the  disease  are 
not  sufficiently  distinct  to  guide  any  decision ;  and  we  must  bear  in 


JOB'S  DISEASE.  285 

mind  that  men  might  be,  and  have  been,  afflicted  with  boils  covering 
their  bodies,  which  were  of  a  simple,  and  curable,  and  in  no  sense  of 
a  malignant  type.  Indeed,  the  word  '  boils  '  suggests  a  curable  kind 
of  complaint.  Gatherings  and  boils  are  not  infrequently  signs  of  the 
impoverishment  of  the  blood  and  general  depression,  following  upon 
prolonged  seasons  of  anxiety  and  distress  such  as  Job  had  known. 
The  fact  of  his  having,  later  on,  a  family  of  beautiful  children  not 
only  affirms  the  completeness  of  his  cure,  but  declares  the  temporary 
and  local  character  of  his  complaint.  We  prefer  to  regard  his  disease 
as  a  simple  case  of  boils,  producing,  as  they  do  when  forming, 
intense  irritation,  and  when  rising  to  a  head  great  pain  and  ex- 
haustion. 

But  other  opinions  may  be  given,  and  in  the  study  of  them  all  the 
reader  may  form  a  satisfactory  judgment. 

Kitto  makes  a  point  of  the  boil  in  this  case  being  '  a  sore  boil,'  and 
;ays  :  '  The  opinion  entertained  by  the  best  scholars  and  physicians 
s,  that  it  was  the  elephantiasis •,  or  black  leprosy,  so  called  to  distinguish 
t  from  the  white  leprosy,  which  was  that  most  frequently  indicated  in 
he  laws  of  Moses  bearing  on  the  subject ;  and  was  also  the  kind 
vith  which  Miriam  and  Gehazi  were  smitten,  for  they  are  described 
.s  having  become  *  white  as  snow.'  The  opinion  that  Job's  disease 
ras  the  black  leprosy  is  also  of  most  ancient  date.  It  is  founded  on 
he  indications  which  the  book  contains,  and  which  are  observed  to 
nswer  to  this  disease.  These  indications  are  afforded  in  the  fact  of 
iis  skin  being  so  covered  from  head  to  foot  that  he  took  a  potsherd 
3  scrape  himself;  in  its  being  covered  with  putrefactions  and  crusts 
f  earth,  and  being  at  one  time  stiff  and  hard,  while  at  another  it 
racked  and  discharged  fluid ;  in  the  offensive  breath,  which  drove 
way  the  kindness  of  his  attendants  ;  in  the  restless  nights,  which 
rere  either  sleepless,  or  scared  with  frightful  dreams;  in  general 
maciation  of  the  body ;  and  in  so  intense  a  loathing  of  the  burden 
f  life  that  strangling  and  death  were  preferable  to  it.  The  black 
iprosy,  which  has  been  described  as  "  a  universal  ulcer,"  is  by  some 
apposed  to  have  received  its  current  medical  name  of  "elephantiasis" 
om  the  Greeks,  on  account  of  its  rendering  the  skin  like  that  of  an 

ephant,  scabrous  and  dark-coloured,  and  furrowed  all  over  with 
ibercles.  But  others  rather  trace  the  name  to  the  resemblance 
hich  may  be  found  in  the  patient's  foot  to  that  of  the  elephant, 
Iter  the  toes  have  been  lost,  the  hollow  of  the  foot  filled  up,  and  the 
ikle  enlarged.' 

Delitzsch  says :  '  The  description  of  this  disease  calls  to  mind 
•cut.  xxviii.  35  with  27,  and  is,  according  to  the  symptoms  men- 


286      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

tioned  further  on  in  the  book,  elephantiasis,  Lepra  nodosa,  the  most 
fearful  form  of  lepra,  which  sometimes  seizes  persons  even  of  the 
higher  ranks.  Artapan  says  that  an  Egyptian  king  was  the  first  man 
who  died  of  this  disease.  Baldwin,  King  of  Jerusalem,  was  afflicted 
with  it  in  a  very  dangerous  form.  The  disease  begins  with  the  rising 
of  tubercular  boils,  and  at  length  resembles  a  cancer  spreading  itself 
over  the  whole  body,  by  which  the  body  is  so  affected  that  some  of 
the  limbs  fall  completely  away.  Scraping  with  a  potsherd  will  not 
only  relieve  the  intolerable  itching  of  the  skin,  but  also  remove  the 
matter.' 

Those  who  take  the  view  that  the  Book  of  Job  is  a  poem  written 
in  the  Solomonic  age,  and  based  upon  an  ancient  legend  of  the 
'  Patriarch  of  Uz,'  are  not  required  to  seek  for  any  precise  identifica- 
tion of  the  disease.  For  the  purposes  of  the  poet,  some  disease 
involving  irritation,  disgrace,  and  depression  of  spirits,  is  selected, 
and  the  descriptions  given  of  it  are  designedly  poetical  and  suggestive, 
rather  than  critical,  historical,  or  scientific.  It  may  be  possible  to 
find  notice  of  symptoms  similar  to  those  of  elephantiasis ;  but  they 
are  symptoms  found  in  connection  with  other  diseases  ;  and  the  most 
marked  feature  of  elephantiasis — the  falling  away  of  limbs — is  cer- 
tainly wanting  in  this  case  of  Job.  To  form  an  exact  judgment  it 
would  be  necessary  for  us  to  know  accurately,  not  only  the 
symptoms  that  were  present,  but  also  the  symptoms  that  were 
absent. 

The  question  of  the  historical  or  imaginative  character  of  the  Book 
of  Job  is  discussed  elsewhere.  Here  it  need  only  be  remarked  that, 
if  the  work  is  strictly  historical,  there  ought  to  be  some  plain  indica- 
tions of  the  agencies  by  which  Job's  cure  from  such  a  dreadful 
disease  was  effected.  As  a  poem,  the  writer  was  under  no  obligation 
to  provide  such  details,  and  the  winding  up  of  the  book  is  certainly  a 
remarkable  illustration  of  what  is  called  '  poetical  justice.'  It  is  cer- 
tainly extraordinary,  and  beyond  easy  explanation,  if  it  must  be 
treated  as  historical. 

Leprosy  in   Clothing   and   Houses. 

LEVITICUS  xiii.  47  :  '  The  garment  also  that  the  plague  of  leprosy  is  in,  whether 
it  be  a  woollen  garment  or  a  linen  garment.' 

LEVITICUS  xiv.  34  :  '  And  I  put  the  plague  of  leprosy  in  a  house  of  the  land  of 
your  possession.' 

Difficulty. —  Can  a  disease  be  properly  spoken  of  as  affecting  both 
houses,  garments,  and  people  ? 

Explanation. — Infection  will  linger  in  house  and  in  garment, 
and  this  we  know  well  in  relation  to  ordinary  forms  of  infectious 


LEPROSY  IN  CLOTHING  AND  HOUSES.         287 

disease  ;  and  no  more  than  this  may  possibly  be  meant  in  relation  to 
leprosy.  Certain  conditions  of  the  houses  and  the  garments  may 
have  been  regarded  as  productive  of  the  disease.  So  we  speak  of 
scarlet-fever  being  in  houses,  or  being  conveyed  by  garments.  And 
Thomson  helps  to  this  suggestion  when  he  says  that  the  upper  rooms 
of  the  houses  in  Palestine,  if  not  constantly  ventilated,  become  quickly 
covered  with  mould,  and  are  unfit  to  live  in. 

But  the  Mosaic  regulations  seem  to  involve  something  more  serious 
than  that,  and  even  appear  to  support  the  conclusions  of  Sommer, 
Kurtz,  and  other  recent  authors,  who  attribute  a  vegetable  origin  to 
the  leprosy.  Hugh  Macmillan  takes  this  view,  and  gives  some 
specially  interesting  information.  '  The  characteristics  mentioned  in 
the  Levitical  narrative  are  such  as  can  belong  only  to  plants.  There 
are  some  species  of  fungi  which  could  have  produced  all  the  effects 
described,  and  whose  form  and  colour  answer  admirably  to  the 
appearances  presented  by  the  leprosy.  We  are,  therefore,  safe  in 
believing  that  the  phenomena  described  were  caused  by  fungi. 

The  leprosy  of  the  house  consisted  of  reddish  and  greenish  patches. 
The  reddish  patches  on  the  wall  were,  in  all  likelihood,  caused  by  the 
presence  of  a  fungus  well  known  under  the  common  name  of  dry-rot, 
ind  called  by  botanists,  Merulius  lachrymans.  Builders  have  often  pain- 
ul  evidence  of  the  virulent  and  destructive  nature  of  this  scourge.  Most 
people  are  acquainted  with  the  effects  of  this  fungus,  but  its  form  and 
ippearance  are  familiar  to  only  a  few.  At  first  it  makes  its  presence 
mown  by  a  few  delicate  white  threads,  which  radiate  from  a  common 
centre,  and  resemble  a  spider's  web.  Gradually  these  threads 
Become  thicker  and  closer,  coalescing  more  and  more,  until  at  last 
hey  form  a  dense  cottony  cushion  of  yellowish-white  colour  and 
•oundish  shape.  The  size  of  this  vegetable  cushion  varies  from  an 
nch  to  eight  inches  in  diameter,  according  as  it  has  room  to  develop 
tself  and  is  supplied  with  the  appropriate  pabulum.  Hundreds  of 
;uch  sponge-like  cushions  may  be  seen  in  places  affected  by  the 
lisease  oozing  out  through  interstices  in  the  floor  or  wall.  At  a  later 
itage  of  growth  the  fungus  developes  over  its  whole  surface  a  number 
>f  fine  orange  or  reddish-brown  veins,  forming  irregular  folds,  most 
requently  so  arranged  as  to  have  the  appearance  of  pores,  and  dis- 
illing,  when  perfect,  drops  of  water,  whence  its  specific  name  of 
achrymans,  or  weeping.  When  fully  matured  it  produces  an  immense 
mmber  of  rusty  seeds,  so  minute  as  to  be  invisible  to  the  naked  eye, 
yhich  are  diffused  throughout  the  atmosphere,  and  are  ever  ready  to 
.light  and  germinate  in  suitable  circumstances.' 

*  The  greenish  streaks  were  caused  by  a  much]  humbler  kind  of 


288      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

fungus,  the  common  green  mould,  or  Pemcilium  glaucu m  of  botanists. 
This  fungus  is  extremely  abundant  everywhere,  and  seems  to  have  been 
no  less  general  in  the  ancient  world,  for  we  find  traces  of  it  pretty  fre- 
quently in  amber,  mixed  with  fragments  of  lichens  and  mosses.  To 
the  naked  eye  it  is  a  mere  greenish,  downy  crust,  spreading  over  a 
decaying  surface,  but  under  the  microscope  it  presents  a  singularly 
lovely  spectacle.  The  little  patch  of  dusty  cobweb  is  transformed 
into  a  fairy  forest  of  the  most  exquisite  shapes.  Hundreds  of  delicate 
transparent  stalks  rise  up  from  creeping,  interlacing  roots  of  snowy 
purity,  crowned  with  bundles  of  slender  hairs,  each  like  a  miniature 
painter's  brush.  Interspersed  among  these  hairs,  which,  under  a 
higher  power  of  the  microscope  are  seen  to  be  somewhat  intricately 
branched,  occur  greenish,  dust-like  particles,  which  are  the  sporidia, 
or  seed-cases,  containing  in  their  interior  the  excessively  minute  and 
impalpable  spores  or  germs  by  which  the  species  is  perpetuated.' 

'The  leprosy  of  garments  may  have  been  caused  by  the  same 
fungi.' 

Dr.  Hay  man,  writing  in  '  Smith's  Dictionary,'  deals  with  this 
question.  '  Some  have  thought  garments  worn  by  leprous  patients 
are  intended.  The  discharges  of  the  diseased  skin  absorbed  into  the 
apparel  would,  if  infection  were  possible,  probably  convey  disease ; 
and  it  is  known  to  be  highly  dangerous  in  some  cases  to  allow  clothes 
which  have  so  imbibed  the  discharges  of  an  ulcer  to  be  worn  again. 
But  no  mention  of  infection  occurs ;  no  connection  of  the  leprous 
garment  with  a  leprous  human  wearer  is  hinted  at :  and  this  would 
not  help  us  to  account  for  a  leprosy  of  stone  walls  and  plaster.  .  .  . 
It  is  now  known  that  there  are  some  skin  diseases  which  originate  in 
an  acarus,  and  others  which  proceed  from  a  fungus.  In  these  we 
may  probably  find  the  solution  of  the  paradox.  The  analogy  between 
the  insect  which  frets  the  human  skin  and  that  which  frets  the  gar- 
ment that  covers  it,  between  the  fungus  growth  that  lines  the  crevices 
of  the  epidermis  and  that  which  creeps  in  the  interstices  of  masonry, 
is  close  enough  for  the  purposes  of  a  ceremonial  law,  to  which  it  is 
essential  that  there  should  be  an  arbitrary  element  intermingled  with 
provisions  manifestly  reasonable.  ...  It  is  manifest  also  that  a 
disease  in  the  human  subject  caused  by  an  acarus  or  by  a  fungus 
would  be  certainly  contagious,  since  the  propagative  cause  could  be 
transferred  from  person  to  person.  Some  physicians,  indeed,  assert 
that  only  such  skin  diseases  are  contagious.  Hence,  perhaps,  arose 
a  further  reason  for  marking,  even  in  their  analogues  among  lifeless 
substances,  the  strictness  with  which  forms  of  disease  so  arising  were 
to  be  shunned.' 


THE  MANIA  OF  NEBUCHADNEZZAR.  289 


The  Mania  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

DANIEL  iv.  33  :  *  The  same  hour  was  the  thing  fulfilled  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  : 
and  he  was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as  oxen,  and  his  body  was  wet 
with  the  dew  of  heaven,  till  his  hairs  were  grown  as  eagle's  feathers,  and  his  nails 
like  bird's  claws.' 

Difficulty. — As  grass  will  not  nourish  human  bodies,  this  must  be 
a  poetical  rather  than  historical  description  ;  or  it  must  need  some  im- 
portant qualifications. 

Explanation. — Nebuchadnezzar's  disease  certainly  belongs  to 
the  more  obscure,  infrequent,  and  extraordinary  cases  of  mania.  We 
may  assume  that  he  personated  the  habits  of  the  beast  he  supposed 
himself  to  be,  but  the  term  '  grass '  must  be  taken  as  including  cereal 
food,  or  we  must  understand  that  he  was  supplied  with  other  and 
more  nutritious  forms  of  vegetable  food  than  grass. 

Hugh  Macmillan  points  out  that  the  grasses  are  the  food  of 
animals  which  supply  man  with  milk  and  flesh,  but  that  man  cannot 
himself  digest  the  grasses,  and  could  not  live  on  this  food  alone. 
Possibly  the  king's  mania  came  on  in  paroxysms  of  intensity,  and 
usually  he  may  have  been  fed  in  some  reasonable  way. 

Interesting  accounts  are  given  of  persons  suffering  from  this  class 
of  mania.  Dr.  Nicholson,  the  physician,  says  :  '  The  disease  was  a 
species  of  melancholy  monomania,  called  by  authors  zoanthropia,  or 
more  commonly  lycanthropia,  because  the  transformation  into  a  wolf 
was  the  most  ordinary  illusion.  Esquirol  considers  it  to  have 
originated  in  the  ancient  custom  of  sacrificing  animals.  But  what- 
ever effect  this  practice  might  have  had  at  the  time,  the  cases 
recorded  are  independent  of  any  such  influence ;  and  it  really  does 
not  seem  necessary  to  trace  this  particular  hallucination  to  a  remote 
historical  cause,  when  we  remember  that  the  imaginary  transforma- 
tions into  inanimate  objects,  such  as  glass,  butter,  etc.,  which  are  of 
every-day  occurrence,  are  equally  irreconcilable  with  the  natural 
instincts  of  the  mind.  The  same  author  relates  that  a  nobleman  of 
the  court  of  Louis  XIV.  was  in  the  habit  of  frequently  putting  his 
head  out  of  a  window,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  urgent  desire  he  had  to 
bark.  Calmet  informs  us  that  the  nuns  of  a  German  convent  were 
transformed  into  cats,  and  went  mewing  over  the  whole  house  at  a 
fixed  hour  of  the  day.' 

Geikie  tells  us  that  '  instances  of  those  afflicted  in  this  way,  eating 
grass,  leaves,  twigs,  etc.,  like  the  great  king,  are  familiar  to  medical 
men.  Nor  is  it  uncommon  for  the  mind  to  lose  its  balance  in  some 
direction,  in  one  raised  so  far  above  all  other  men  as  a  mighty 

19 


29o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

despot,  and  so  irresponsible.  .  .  .  That  some  terrible  illness  seized 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  strangely  proved  by  the  recent  discovery  of  a 
bronze  doorstep,  presented  by  him  to  the  great  temple  of  El  Saggil, 
at  Borsippa,'one  of  the  suburbs  or  divisions  of  Babylon.  It  speaks 
of  his  having  been  afflicted,  and  of  his  restoration  to  health,  and  may 
well  have  been  a  votive  offering  to  the  gods  on  his  recovery  from  the 
attack  mentioned  in  Daniel.' 

Dr.  William  Wright  gathers  up  some  information  which  greatly 
helps  toward  the  elucidation  of  this  difficulty  in  Kino's  '  Cyclopaedia.1 
'  The  difficulties  attending  the  nature  of  the  disease  and  recovery  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  have  not  escaped  the  notice  of  commentators  in 
ancient  as  well  as  modern  times.  The  impression  made  by  them  on 
the  acute  mind  of  Origen,  that  father  thus  expresses  :  '  How  is  it 
possible  to  suppose  a  man  metamorphosed  into  a  beast  ?  This 
sounds  well  enough  in  the  poets,  who  speak  of  the  companions  of 
Ulysses  and  of  Diomede  as  transformed  into  birds  and  wolves,  fables 
which  existed  in  the  poet's  imagination  only.  But  how  could  a 
prince  like  Nebuchadnezzar,  reared  in  delicacy  and  pleasure,  be  able 
to  live  naked  for  seven  years,  exposed  to  the  inclemency  of  the 
weather,  and  having  no  nourishment  but  grass  and  wild  fruits? 
How  could  he  resist  the  violence  of  wild  beasts?  Who  governed 
the  empire  of  Chaldaea  in  his  absence?  ...  It  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  Origen's  passion  for  allegorizing  frequently  led  him  to 
overstate  the  difficulties  of  Scripture,  and  his  own  solution  of  those 
which  he  enumerates,  viz.,  that  the  account  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
metamorphosis  was  merely  a  representation  of  the  fall  of  Lucifer,  is 
not  likely  to  meet  with  many  supporters.  Besides  Origen's,  there 
have  been  no  less  than  five  different  opinions  in  reference  to  this 
subject.  Bodin  maintains  that  Nebuchadnezzar  underwent  an  actual 
metamorphosis  of  soul  and  body,  a  similar  instance  of  which  is  given 
by  Cluvier  on  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  Tertullian  confines 
the  transformation  to  the  body  only,  but  without  loss  of  reason,  of 
which  kind  of  metamorphosis  St.  Augustine  reports  some  instances 
said  to  have  taken  place  in  Italy,  to  which  he  himself  attaches  little 
credit ;  but  Gaspard  Peucer  asserts  that  the  transformation  of  men 
into  wolves  was  very  common  in  Livonia.  Some  Jewish  Rabbins 
have  asserted  that  the  soul  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  by  a  real  transmi- 
gration, changed  places  with  that  of  an  ox ;  while  others  have  sup- 
posed not  a  real,  but  an  apparent  or  docetic  change,  of  which  there 
is  a  case  recorded  in  the  life  of  St.  Macarius,  the  parents  of  a  young 
woman  having  been  persuaded  that  their  daughter  had  been  trans- 
formed into  a  mare.  The  most  generally  received  opinion,  however, 


ELISHA'S  WAY  OF  RESTORING  A  DEAD  CHILD.  291 

is,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  laboured  under  the  species  of  hypochon- 
driacal  monomania,  which  leads  the  patient  to  fancy  himself  changed 
into  an  animal  (or  other  substance),  the  habits  of  which  he  adopts.' 

The  Scripture  statements  are  quite  satisfied  by  our  assuming  that 
during  seven  years  Nebuchadnezzar  was  subject  to  fits  of  insanity, 
and  while  they  were  on  him,  imagined  himself  an  animal,  and 
behaved  as  if  he  really  were  one.  During  his  fits  he  would  be  kept 
securely  within  the  palace  grounds. 


Elisha's  Way  of  Restoring  a  Dead  Child. 

2  KINGS  iv.  34  :  *  And  he  went  up,  and  lay  upon  the  child,  and  put  his  mouth 
upon  his  mouth,  and  his  eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands  upon  his  hands  ;  and  he 
stretched  himself  upon  the  child  ;  and  the  flesh  of  the  child  waxed  warm.' 

Difficulty. — This  seems  to  be  the  restoration  of  the  child  by  natural 
means.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  where  the  miraculous  element  comes  in, 
since  all  restorative  means  are  dependent  on  God's  power  working 
through  them. 

Explanation. — We  are  at  grave  disadvantage  in  the  absence  of 
scientific  descriptions  of  Bible  diseases.  It  is  certainly  open  to  any- 
one to  suggest  that  this  was  a  case  of  suspended  animation,  rather 
than  of  death,  and  that  the  child  was  restored  by  the  will-power  of 
the  prophet.  There  have  been  cases  in  which  doctors  have,  by  their 
own  breath,  started  the  vital  action  of  the  organs  in  new-born 
children.  There  have  been  cases  in  which  life  has  been  breathed 
into  those  who  were  unconscious  from  drowning.  And  there  is  good 
and  sufficient  evidence  to  support  the  claims  of  those  who  affirm  that 
persons  can  recover  the  dying — under  certain  circumstances — by 
willing  their  life  into  them. 

It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  both  Old  and  New  Testament 
miracles  are  associated  with  some  kind  of  agency.  Our  Lord  made 
clay  and  anointed  the  eyes  He  opened.  Elisha  put  wood  to  make 
iron  swim,  etc.  It  may  be  that  the  agency  was  not  essential  to  the 
miracle,  and  yet  it  seems  more  reverent  to  say,  that  if  it  was  used  it 
was  essential,  and  there  must  be  something  for  us  to  learn  from  the 
fact  that  the  miracle  was  made  dependent  on  the  agency. 

All  restorative  agents,  be  they  medical  or  surgical,  electrical, 
mesmeric,  hypnotic,  biological,  or  otherwise,  we  regard  as  absolutely 
dependent  on  the  Divine  blessing.  A  recovery  from  disease  is  never 
adequately  explained  by  treating  only  the  agency ;  the  effective  force 
behind  the  agency  must  be  considered,  and  that  is  God  working. 
We  may  then  distinctly  recognise  in  Elisha's  acts  restorative  agencies, 

19—2 


292      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

and  with  equal  distinctness  hold'that  the  efficient  force  which  worked 
through  the  agency  was  the  miraculous  power  of  God. 

The  result  of  sunstroke  may  be  unconsciousness  and  suspended 
animation ;  and  from  sunstroke  this  child  evidently  suffered.  In  such 
a  case  nowadays  effort  would  certainly  be  directed  to  the  restoration 
of  suspended  vitality,  just  as  in  cases  of  drowning.  And  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  there  is  no  support  of  the  woman's  idea  that  the 
child  was  dead ;  she  acted  on  her  own  conviction  with  great  prompti- 
tude and  great  secrecy. 

The  narrative  clearly  indicates  that  the  restoration  of  the  child  in- 
volved so  much  physical  exhaustion  for  Elisha,  that  he  had  to  stop 
in  the  middle  of  it,  and  restore  his  own  wasted  breath  by  walking  to 
and  fro  in  the  house.  We  may  say  that  it  was  a  case  of  miraculous 
restoration  in  which  the  material  agency  employed  was  unusually  ex- 
tensive and  long-continued. 

A  Cloth  on  the  Face. 

2  KINGS  viii.  15  :  '  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow,  that  he  took  a  thick 
cloth,  and  dipped  it  in  water,  and  spread  it  on  his  face,  so  that  he  died.' 

Question. — Did  Hazael  do  this  as  a  remedy  y  or  with  the  distinct 
intention  of  putting  his  master  to  death  ? 

Answer. — The  Revised  Version  renders,  '  He  took  the  coverlet/ 
The  word  used  means  literally  *  The  woven  cloth.'  This  alteration 
of  the  Authorized  Version  suggests  that  Hazael  attempted  to  ad- 
minister what  we  should  now  call  the  *  water-cure.'  He  may  have 
applied  it  at  an  unsuitable  time,  or  it  may  have  proved  unsuitable  for 
this  particular  patient.  We  only  know  that  the  result  was  fatal,  but 
the  record  leaves  open  the  question  whether  the  death  was  designed 
or  accidental.  If  there  is  bias  in  the  narrative,  it  certainly  is 
against  Hazael,  who  seems  to  have  been  excited  to  action  by  the 
prophecy  of  his  becoming  king.  The  words  spoken  by  Elisha  to 
Hazael  (verse  12)  indicate  that  he  was  a  man  of  violent  and  un- 
scrupulous character,  who  would  think  little  of  removing  his  king  if 
he  stood  in  the  way  of  his  ambitions. 

Harper  takes  the  view  that  Hazael  intended  murder.  Elisha  saw 
from  Hazael's  face  the  black  thought  in  his  heart,  for  murder  was. 
seething  there;  and  though  he  indignantly  says,  'Is  thy  servant  a 
dog,  that  he  should  do  this  great  thing  ?'  yet  he  goes  back,  and  with 
a  wet  cloth  suffocates  his  royal  master,  and  usurps  the  throne. 

GeikiJs  explanation  is  quite  imaginative.  '  Next  day,  however, 
Hazael  was  king.  He,  or  some  one  commissioned  by  him,  had 


A  CLOTH  ON  THE  FACE.  293 

overpowered  Benhadad  in  his  bath,  and  had  suffocated  him  with  the 
wet  cloths  he  had  been  using.' 

Ewald  says,  '  On  the  next  day,  however,  the  king  was  found  dead, 
not  certainly  from  his  illness,  but  from  violence  ;  as  he  was  going  to 
take  his  bath,  his  servant  (we  do  not  know  from  what  particular 
motive)  dipped  the  bath-cloth  into  the  warm  water,  and,  before  the 
king  could  call  for  help,  drew  it  so  tight  over  his  head  that  he  was 
smothered.' 

Josephus  tells  us  that  Hazael  strangled  his  master  with  a  mosquito- 
net. 

Dr.  Lumby  thinks  the  means  Hazael  employed  was  probably  the 
coverlet  of  the  bed,  which,  soaked  and  laid  over  the  sick  man's  face, 
would  effectually  stop  his  breath.  Death  so  caused  would  give  very 
little  sign  of  violence,  and  might  in  those  early  times  be  readily  re- 
ferred to  the  disease  of  which  the  king  was  sick. 

The  Speakers  Commentary  thinks  that  the  article  used  was  'a 
cloth,  or  mat,  placed  between  the  head  and  the  upper  part  of  the 
bedstead,  which  in  Egypt  and  Assyria  was  often  so  shaped  that 
pillows  (in  our  sense)  were  unnecessary.'  It  mentions,  but  only  to 
reject,  the  notion  of  Geddes,  Boothroyd  and  Schultz,  that  Benhadad 
is  the  subject  of  the  verbs  'took,'  'dipped,'  'spread,' and  that  he  put 
the  cloth  on  himself  to  give  himself  relief,  and  so  unintentionally 
caused  his  own  death.  As  illustration,  it  notices  that  Suetonius 
declares  the  Roman  Emperor,  Tiberius,  to  have  been  smothered 
with  his  pillow  as  he  lay  upon  a  sick-bed. 

Bruce,  in  his  travels,  gives  an  account  of  a  fever  which  prevailed 
in  Abyssinia,  called  the  nedad,  and  he  adds :  '  If  the  patient  sur- 
vives till  the  fifth  day,  he  very  often  recovers  by  drinking  water  only, 
and  throwing  a  quantity  of  cold  water  upon  him,  even  on  his  bed, 
where  he  is  nevertheless  permitted  to  lie  without  attempting  to  make 
him  dry  or  to  change  his  bed,  till  another  deluge  adds  to  the  first. 
Such  a  custom  suggests  the  possibility  that  Hazael  was  doing  his 
best,  or  perhaps  only  pretending  to  do  his  best,  to  effect  a  water- 
cure.' 

Stanley  says,  Elisha  'gazed  earnestly  on  Hazael's  face;  saw  his 
future  elevation,  and  saw  with  it  the  calamities  which  that  elevation 
would  bring  on  his  country  ....  Hazael  himself  stood  astounded 
at  the  prophet's  message.  He,  insignificant  as  he  seemed,  a  mere 
dog,  to  be  raised  to  such  lofty  power,  and  do  such  famous  deeds ! 
But  so  it  was  to  be.  By  his  deed,  or  another's,  the  king  died,  not  of 
his  illness,  but  by  an  apparent  accident  in  his  bath ;  and  Hazael  was 
at  once  raised  to  the  throne  of  Syria. 


294      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 


(NEW    TESTAMENT.) 

The  Medicine  of  our  Lord's  Time. 

MARK  v.  26  :  '  And  had  suffered  many  things  of  many  physicians,  and  had 
spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing  bettered,  but  rather  grew  worse.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  discover  any  scientific  elements  in  the 
medical  system  of  the  time  of  our  Lord? 

Answer. — The  Cyclopaedias  deal  fully  with  the  medical  systems 
associated  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  but  little  with  those  associated 
with  the  New  Testament. 

Dr.  E.  Stapfer,  in  his  work  on  'Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ/ 
has  collected  some  curious  and  interesting  information.  He  says  : 
'  Everyone  at  this  moment  meddled  with  medicine,  yet  no  one 
understood  its  very  first  principles.  Scientific  medicine  had  been 
known  in  Greece  for  five  hundred  years,  but  it  had  been  confined 
to  that  country.  The  persistent  ignorance  of  the  Jews  on  th£  subject 
of  medicine  is  accounted  for  by. their  belief  that  sickness  was  the 
punishment  of  sins  committed  either  by  the  sufferer  himself  or  by  his 
relations ;  hence  it  was  almost  always  attributed  to  the  action  of  evil 
spirits.  The  only  cure  possible,  therefore,  was  the  expulsion  of  the 
evil  spirit  (or  spirits,  for  there  might  be  many),  and  the  whole  science 
of  medicine  consisted  in  discovering  the  best  method  of  exorcising 
the  demon.  It  was  not  the  most  educated  man  who  was  competent 
to  this  work  of  benevolence,  but  the  most  religious.  The  more  pious 
a  man  was,  the  more  fit  was  he  to  heal  the  sick,  that  is,  to  cast  out 
the  evil  spirits.  Everyone,  therefore,  practised  this  art  of  healing  as 
best  he  could  for  himself  and  for  those  who  belonged  to  him.  The 
rabbis,  scribes,  and  doctors  of  the  law  undertook  the  casting  out 
demons,  and  some  of  them  were  considered  very  skilful  in  the  art. 
The  healing  art  was  simply  exorcism. .  .  .  When  the  sick  man  was  not 
possessed,  the  methods  of  cure  were  moreserious. . .  .  Some  doctors  tried 
to  employ  real  remedies.  The  Essenes,  for  example,  were  acquainted 
with  some  medicinal  herbs,  and  knew  their  properties.  They  were 
the  possessors  of  the  famous  Book  of  Incantations  said  to  be  by 
King  Solomon.  Perhaps  it  contained  some  recipes  which  may  have 
been  of  use.  The  softening,  soothing  properties  of  oil  seem  to  have 
been  appreciated  even  then.  It  was  often  mixed  with  wine,  and  this 
remedy  is  still  very  efficacious  in  certain  cases.  The  sick  man  was 
anointed  with  oil.  These  unctions  may,  however,  have  been  credited 
with  some  magic  virtue.  Nor  is  this  all.  Occasionally  the  Talmuds 


THE  MEDICINE  OF  OUR  LORD'S  TIME.         295 

speak  of  prescriptions  for  other  complaints.  The  cedar  cone  was  used 
in  medicine.  Ophthalmia  was  common.  The  traveller  is  struck  now 
with  the  number  of  blind  people  in  the  East.  Thus  the  Bible  speaks 
of  eye-salve.  It  was  a  favourite  remedy  to  wash  the  eyes  with  saliva 
and  wine.  This  gave  much  relief,  but  it  was  forbidden  to  use  it  on 
the  Sabbath-day.' 

Stapfer  gives  a  curious  passage  from  the  Talmud  of  Babylon 
illustrating  the  treatment  of  a  patient  suffering  as  did  the  woman 
mentioned  in  the  passage  at  the  head  of  this  paragraph.  We  know 
who  these  physicians  were.  They  were  the  rabbis.  And  we  know 
also  what  remedies  they  had  prescribed  for  this  poor  woman.  Rabbi 
Yochanan  says :  *  Take  a  denarius  weight  of  gum  of  Alexandria,  a 
denarius  weight  of  alum,  a  denarius  weight  of  garden  saffron,  pound 
all  together,  and  give  it  to  the  woman  in  some  wine.  If  this  remedy 
does  not  succeed,  take  three  times  three  logs  of  Persian  onions,  boil 
them  in  the  wine,  and  give  this  to  the  woman  to  drink,  saying  to  her, 
"  Be  free  from  thy  sickness."  If  this  does  not  succeed,  take  her  to  a 
place  where  two  roads  meet,  put  in  her  hands  a  cup  of  wine,  and  let 
some  one  coming  up  behind,  startle  her,  saying  to  her  :  "  Be  free  from 
thy  sickness."  If  still  nothing  answers,  take  a  handful  of  saffron  and 
a  handful  of  fcenum  grcecum,  boil  them  in  some  wine,  and  give  it  her 
to  drink,  saying  :  "  Be  free  from  thy  sickness."  ' 

The  Talmud  goes  on  thus,  proposing  a  dozen  other  means  to  be 
used,  among  them  the  following :  '  Dig  seven  pits,  and  burn  in  them 
some  vine-branches  not  yet  four  years  old.  Then  let  the  woman, 
carrying  a  cup  of  wine  in  her  hand,  come  up  to  each  pit  in  succession, 
and  sit  down  by  the  side  of  it,  and  each  time  let  the  words  be 
repeated  :  "Be  free  from  thy  sickness."  ' 

The  mixture  of  science  and  superstition  in  these  very  curious 
prescriptions  is  striking. 


Saliva  as  a  Curative  Agent. 

JOHN  ix.  6  :  *  When  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  spat  on  the  ground,  and  made  clay 
of  the  spittle,  and  he  anointed  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  with  the  clay.' 

Question. — Are  we  to  recognise  in  the  clay  so  mixed  an  actual 
agent  in  effecting  the  recovery  of  this  man's  eyesight  ? 

Answer. — The  incident  is  to  be  viewed  entirely  from  the  side  of 
the  blind  man.  The  use  of  an  agent  was  not  necessary  for  the 
people5  or  for  the  disciples,  but  the  man,  being  unable  to  see,  could 
only  be  approached  and  influenced  through  feeling.  The  feeling 


296     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

had  to  be  one  which  he  would  be  able  to  recognise ;  the  remedy  was 
probably  one  which  he  had  tried  before.  It  had  hitherto  been 
inefficient ;  then,  since  it  was  now  efficient,  the  difference  lay  not  in 
the  clay,  but  in  the  person  administering.  So  his  faith  was  drawn  out 
to  Christ. 

The  point  needing  illustration  is  the  popular  sentiment  concerning 
saliva  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
means  used  by  our  Lord  found  their  place  in  the  ordinary  prescriptions 
of  the  day.  '  We  know  from  the  pages  of  Pliny,  and  Tacitus,  and 
Suetonius,  that  the  saliva  jejuna  was  held  to  be  a  remedy  in  cases  of 
blindness,  and  that  the  same  remedy  was  used  by  the  Jews  is 
established  by  the  writings  of  the  Rabbis.  That  clay  was  so  used 
is  not  equally  certain,  but  this  may  be  regarded  as  the  vehicle  by 
means  of  which  the  saliva  was  applied.  Physicians  had  applied  such 
means  commonly  to  cases  of  post-natal  blindness,  but  congenital 
blindness  had  always  been  regarded  as  incurable.' 

Farrar  and  Geikie  both  tell  us  that  it  was  the  belief,  in  antiquity, 
that  the  saliva  of  one  who  was  fasting  was  of  benefit  to  weak  eyes, 
and  that  clay  relieved  those  who  suffered  from  tumours  on  the  eye- 
lids. It  may  be  that  Jesus  thought  of  this. 

Dr.  Plummer  says  :  '  Regard  for  Christ's  truthfulness  compels  us  to 
regard  the  clay  as  the  means  of  healing ;  not  that  He  could  not  heal 
without  it,  but  that  he  willed  this  to  be  the  channel  of  His  power. 
Elsewhere  He  uses  spittle,  to  heal  a  blind  man  (Mark  viii.  23) ;  to 
heal  a  deaf  and  dumb  man  (Mark  vii.  33).  Spittle  was  believed  to 
be  a  remedy  for  diseased  eyes  (comp.  Vespasian's  reputed  miracle, 
"Tac.  Hist.,"  iv.  81,  and  other  instances);  clay  also,  though  less 
commonly.  So  that  Christ  selects  an  ordinary  remedy,  and  gives  it 
success  in  a  case  confessedly  beyond  its  supposed  power  (v.  32).' 

Trench  says  :  'The  virtue  especially  of  \hesalivajejuna,  in  cases  of 
disorders  of  the  eyes,  was  well  known  to  antiquity.' 


Devil-Possessions,  viewed  Medically. 

MATTHEW  ix.  28  :  '  There  met  him  two  possessed  with  devils  (demons) 
coming  forth  out  of  the  tombs,  exceeding  fierce,  so  that  no  man  could  pass  by 
that  way.' 

Difficulty. — Medical  Science  seems  able  to  account  for  these  and 
similar  cases  without  having  any  resort  to  suppositions  of  spirit  pos- 
sessions. 

Explanation. — In  the  former  volume,  '  Handbook  of  Biblical 
Difficulties,'  p.  515,  this  topic  was  somewhat  fully  treated.  It  is 


DEVIL-POSSESSIONS,    VIEWED  MEDICALLY.     297 

only  necessary  to  add  here  some  of  the  more  recent  additions  to  the 
elucidation  of  a  difficult  subject. 

Dr.  E.  Stapfer  says :  '  Cases  of  madness,  hysteria,  hallucination, 
were  frequent  among  the  Jews  in  the  first  century.  If  they  were 
wrong  in  calling  almost  every  sort  of  disease  "possession,"  it  was 
very  natural  that  they  should  give  the  name  of  possessed  persons,  or 
demoniacs,  to  the  sufferers  from  those  strange  nervous  affections 
which  still  baffle  science.  We  know  now  what  these  so-called 
"  possessions  "  were,  and  anyone  who  has  witnessed  one  of  the  crises 
of  mania  can  easily  understand  how  among  the  Jews,  and  in  the 
middle  ages,  people  believed  in  the  influence  of  demons.  These 
affections  were  all  the  more  frequent  in  the  time  of  Christ,  on  account 
of  the  state  of  high-strung  religious  and  political  excitement  in  which 
the  Jewish  people  were  living.' 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  descriptions  given  of  these 
'  demoniacs '  in  the  New  Testament  depend  entirely  on  the  casual 
observation  of  the  beholder,  toned  by  the  common  sentiment  and 
superstition  of  the  age.  In  no  instance  have  we  anything  that  can  be 
called  a  scientific  record  of  the  signs  of  the  disease.  It  is,  therefore, 
difficult  for  us  to  say  whether  modern  medical  science  has  covered  and 
included  all  the  New  Testament  cases.  Scientific  details  now  given 
can  hardly  be  expected  to  match  precisely  what  are  merely  vague  and 
indefinite  hints  and  descriptions.  But  a  candid  mind  could  hardly 
fail  to  recognise,  that  the  presumption  is  wholly  in  favour  of  the  strictly 
medical  character  of  all  these  so-called  devil-possessions.  Indeed, 
the  explanation  of  them  as  spirit-possessions  would  never  be  suggested 
to  anyone  unless  a  previous  theory  in  relation  to  the  malevolent 
influence  of  spirits  were  held.  We  can  hardly  hesitate  to  class  them 
under  '  diseases.3 

There  is,  however,  still  found  among  Bible  writers  an  unwillingness 
to  yield  the  idea  that  some  unique  form  of  suffering  through  the 
agency  of  spirits  is  meant ;  and  we  must  therefore  submit  the 
matter  to  the  judgment  of  our  readers,  who  are  likely  to  take  one  or  the 
other  view,  according  as  they  are  related  to  the  materialistic  or 
spiritualistic  schools  of  thought. 

Stalker  says  :  '  Besides  these  bodily  cures, .  He  dealt  with  the 
diseases  of  the  mind.  These  seem  to  have  been  peculiarly 
prevalent  in  Palestine  at  the  time,  and  to  have  excited  the  utmost 
terror.  They  were  believed  to  be  accompanied  by  the  entrance  of 
demons  into  the  poor  imbecile  or  raving  victims,  and  this  idea  was 
only  too  true.' 

Vallings  say  :  '  The  psychology  of  demonism  is  obscure.     Modern 


298      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

lunacy  furnishes  points  of  contact,  and  apparent  instances  of  it  now 
and  then.  But  the  two  are  not  to  be  confounded,  as  the  ordinary 
lunatic  may  merely  suffer  from  some  cerebral  disease,  while  the 
demonized  need  have  none.'  But  proof  of  this  distinction  is  lacking. 

Medicinal  Value  of  Music. 

I  SAMUEL  xvi.  16  :  '  Let  our  lord  now  command  thy  servants,  which  are  before 
thee,  to  seek  out  a  man  who  is  a  cunning  player  on  the  harp  :  and  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  when  the  evil  spirit  from  God  is  upon  thee,  that  he  shall  play  with  his  hand, 
and  thou  shall  be  well.' 

Difficulty. — There  may  be  a  soothing  value  in  music >  but  only  in  a 
way  of  accommodation  can  it  be  called  a  medicinal  agent. 

Explanation. — It  is  quite  true  that  all  disease  involves  the 
disturbance  of  some  bodily  process,  the  injury,  or  unnatural  working, 
of  some  bodily  organ,  and  music  can  hardly  be  thought  of  as  repair- 
ing or  restoring  such.  But  we  are  learning  more  and  more  clearly 
that  many  forms  of  disease  have  their  true  causes  in  conditions 
of  mind.  The  diseased  brain,  or  nervous  system,  may  be  the 
effect  of  the  real  disease,  whose  seat  is  in  disposition,  character,  feel- 
ing, etc.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  disease  may  be  viewed. 
Bodily  conditions  may  create  mental  conditions  ;  but  it  is  equally  true 
that  mental  conditions  may  create  bodily  conditions.  Constantly  the 
doctor,  visiting  a  fresh  patient,  will  have  to  say  :  *  You  have  something 
on  your  mind  ;'  or  *  Have  you  not  had  some  great  trouble  lately  ?'  or 
'  You  have  been  overworking  the  brain.'  Now  music  may  be  a 
restorative  agent  when  the  cause  of  disease  is  mental,  or  belongs 
to  character  rather  than  to  bodily  organ. 

Saul's  case  belongs  to  the  mental,  and  not  to  the  bodily,  class, 
though  the  account  we  have  of  him  suggests  some  slowness  of  brain- 
movement,  which  may  have  developed  into  an  obscure  form  of 
insanity.  Jealousy  was  the  irritating  cause  of  his  times  of  un- 
restrained passion ;  and  there  are  illustrations  of  the  medicamental 
power  of  music  in  such  cases. 

The  prominent  feature  of  Saul's  disease  was  fits  of  moodiness  and 
melancholy,  which  sometimes  were  so  severe  as  to  become  murderous 
mania.  There  is  a  story  recorded  concerning  Philip  V.  of  Spain. 
He  was  seized  with  a  total  dejection  of  spirits,  which  rendered  him 
incapable  of  appearing  in  Court,  or  of  attending  to  his  affairs.  A 
celebrated  musician,  Farinelli,  was  invited  to  Spain,  and  he  gained 
power  over  the  king  by  the  fascination  of  his  songs. 

Edersheim  writes,  somewhat  fancifully :  '  The  evil  spirit  sent  from 
God  was  the  messenger  of  that  evil  which  in  the  Divine  judgment  was 


MEDICINAL   VALUE  OF  MUSIC.  299 

to  come  upon  Saul,  visions  of  which  now  affrighted  the  king,  filled 
him  with  melancholy,  and  brought  him  to  the  verge  of  madness — but 
not  to  repentance.  It  is  thus,  also,  that  we  can  understand  how 
the  music  of  David's  harp  soothed  the  spirit  of  Saul,  while  those 
hymns  which  it  accompanied — perhaps  some  of  his  earliest  psalms — 
brought  words  of  heaven,  thoughts  of  mercy,  strains  of  another 
world,  to  the  troubled  soul  of  the  king/ 

Francis  Jacox  gathers  up  some  very  striking  examples  of  what  he 
calls  '  Medicamental  Music :'  '  That  there  is  something  more  than 
ordinary  in  music,  Bishop  Beveridge,  in  his  "Private  Thoughts," 
infers  from  this  fact — that  David  made  use  of  the  harp  for  driving 
away  the  evil  spirit  from  Saul,  as  well  as  for  bringing  the  good  spirit 
upon  himself.  The  gentle  prelate  therefore  recognises  in  music  a 
sort  of  secret  and  charming  power,  such  as  naturally  dispels  "  those 
black  humours  which  the  evil  spirit  is  apt  to  brood  upon,"  and  such, 
too,  as  composes  the  mind  into  a  more  regular,  sweet,  and  docile 
disposition,  thereby  rendering  it  "  the  fitter  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
work  upon,  the  more  susceptive  of  Divine  grace,  and  more  faithful 
messenger  to  convey  truth  to  the  understanding."  '  And  he  cites  his 
personal  experience — experto  crede — in  favour  of  this  view. 

Buretti  declares  music  to  have  the  power  of  so  affecting  the  whole 
nervous  system  as  to  give  sensible  ease  in  a  large  variety  of  disorders, 
and  in  some  cases  a  radical  cure.  Particularly  he  instances  sciatica 
as  capable  of  being  relieved  by  this  agency.  Theophrastus  is  men- 
tioned by  Pliny  as  recommending  it  for  the  hip-gout ;  and  there  are 
references  on  record  by  old  Cato  and  Varro  to  the  same  effect. 
yEsculapius  figures  in  Pindar  as  healing  acute  disorders  with  soothing 

songs : 

'  Music  exalts  each  joy,  allays  each  grief, 
Expels  diseases,  softens  every  pain, 
Subdues  the  rage  of  poison  and  of  plague  ; 
And  hence  the  wise  of  ancient  days  adored 
One  power  of  Physic,  Melody,  and  Song.' 

Over  Luther,  as  Sir  James  Stephen  has  remarked,  there  brooded  a 
constitutional  melancholy,  sometimes  engendering  sadness,  but  more 
often  giving  birth  to  dreams  so  wild  that,  if  vivified  by  the  imagina- 
tion of  Dante,  they  might  have  passed  into  visions  as  awful  and 
majestic  as  those  in  the  '  Inferno.'  Various  were  the  spells  to  which 
Luther  had  recourse,  to  cast  out  the  demons  that  haunted  him  ;  and 
of  these  remedial  agencies  the  most  potent,  perhaps,  was  music. 
'  He  had  ascertained  and  taught  that  the  spirit  of  darkness  abhors 
sweet  sounds  not  less  than  light  itself;  for  music  (he  says),  while  it 
chases  away  the  evil  suggestions,  effectually  baffles  the  wiles  of  the 


300      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

tempter.  His  lute,  and  hand,  and  voice,  accompanying  his  own 
solemn  melodies,  were  therefore  raised  to  repel  the  vehement  aggres- 
sions of  the  enemy  of  mankind.' 

It  is  characteristic,  as  Herr  Kohl  observes,  of  music-loving 
Bohemia,  that,  in  the  lunatic  asylum  of  its  capital,  music  should  be 
considered  one  of  the  chief  aids  and  appliances  for  the  improvement  of 
the  patients.  In  addition  to  the  garden  concerts,  in  which  all  assist 
who  can,  there  is  chamber-music — quartets,  trios,  etc. — every  morn- 
ing and  evening  in  the  wards,  and  a  musical-director  takes  high  rank 
in  the  official  staff  of  the  establishment. 

Elizabeth  Charlotte  of  Orleans,  mother  of  the  Regent,  describes  in 
one  of  her  letters  a  Madame  de  Persillie,  well  born  and  well  bred,  but  a 
dangerous  lunatic ;  who,  however,  if  you  could  but  slip  a  guitar  into 
her  hand  when  the  fury-fit  came  on,  would  become  calm  again  as 
soon  as  she  began  to  play. 

Browning,  in  '  Paracelsus,'  has  the  following  lines  : 

'  My  heart  !  they  loose  my  heart,  those  simple  words; 
Its  darkness  passes,  which  nought  else  could  touch ; 
Like  some  dank  snake  that  force  may  not  expel, 
Which  glideth  out  to  music  sweet  and  low.' 

Paul's  Thorn  in  the  Flesh. 

2  CORINTHIANS  xii.  7  :  '  Wherefore,  that  I  should  not  be  exalted  overmuch, 
there  was  given  to  me  a  thorn  (stake)  in  the  flesh,  a  messenger  of  Satan  to  buffet 
me,  that  I  should  not  be  exalted  overmuch.'  (Rev.  Ver.) 

Question. — Have  modern  discussions  provided  ground  for  a  decision 
concerning  this  chronic  affliction  of  the  apostle  ? 

Answer. — It  may  be  said  with  some  confidence  that  the  evi- 
dences and  the  arguments  favour  the  idea  that  St.  Paul  suffered  from 
chronic  inflammation  of  the  eyes.  The  word  chosen  by  the  apostle, 
which  is  translated  'thorn,'  means  a  stake,  or  goad,  a  thing  that 
pricks,  and  this  would  suggest  the  painful  and  extremely  irritating 
pricking  sensation  that  is  characteristic  of  inflammation  of  the  eye. 

Various  other  suggestions  have  been  offered.  Tertullian  is  the 
first  Christian  writer  who  ventured  on  an  explanation.  He  thinks  it 
was  a  pain  in  the  ear  or  head.  Some  think  that  the  Apostle  suffered 
from  epileptic  fits.  The  Greek  commentators  say  the  Apostle  may 
be  referring,  in  a  figurative  manner,  to  the  opponents  of  his  Apostolic 
authority. 

Professor  Lias  elaborates  a  theory  which  may  have  novelty  for 
some  of  our  readers  :  '  Our  last  alternative  must  be  some  defect  of 
character,  calculated  to  interfere  with  St.  Paul's  success  as  a  minister 


PAULS  THORN  IN  THE  FLESH.  301 

of  Jesus  Christ.  And  the  defect  which  falls  in  best  with  what  we 
know  of  St.  Paul  is  an  infirmity  of  temper.  There  seems  little  doubt 
that  he  gave  way  to  an  outbreak  of  this  kind  when  before  the  San- 
hedrin,  though  he  set  himself  right  at  once  by  a  prompt  apology.  A 
similar  idea  is  suggested  by  St.  Paul's  unwillingness  to  go  to  Corinth 
until  the  points  in  dispute  between  him  and  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  Corinthian  Church  were  in  a  fair  way  of  being  settled.  In  fact, 
his  conduct  was  precisely  the  reverse  of  that  of  a  person  who  felt 
himself  endowed  with  great  tact,  persuasiveness,  and  command  of 
temper.  Such  a  man  would  trust  little  to  messages  and  letters,  much 
to  his  own  presence  and  personal  influence.  St.  Paul,  on  the  con- 
trary, feared  to  visit  Corinth  until  there  was  a  reasonable  prospect  of 
avoiding  all  altercation.  In  fact,  he  could  not  trust  himself  there. 
He  "feared  that  God  would  humble  him  among  them."  He  desired 
above  all  things  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  "  using  sharpness,"  very 
possibly  because  he  feared  that  when  once  compelled  to  assume  a  tone 
of  severity,  his  language  might  exceed  the  bounds  of  Christian  love. 
The  supposition  falls  in  with  what  we  know  of  the  Apostle  before  his 
conversion.  It  is  confirmed  by  his  stern  language  to  Elymas  the 
sorcerer,  with  which  we  may  compare  the  much  milder  language  used 
by  St.  Peter  on  a  far  more  awful  occasion.  The  quarrel  between  St. 
Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  makes  the  supposition  infinitely  more  probable. 
The  passage  above  cited  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  may  be 
interpreted  of  the  deep  personal  affection  which  the  Apostle  felt  he 
had  inspired  in  spite  of  his  occasional  irritability  of  manner.  The 
expression  that  he  "  desired  to  be  present  with  them  and  to  change 
his  voice,"  would  seem  to  point  in  the  same  direction.  And  if  we 
add  to  these  considerations  the  fact,  which  the  experience  of  God's 
saints  in  all  ages  has  conclusively  established,  of  the  difficulty  of  sub- 
duing an  infirmity  of  temper,  as  well  as  the  pain,  remorse,  and 
humiliation  such  an  infirmity  is  wont  to  cause  to  those  who  groan 
under  it,  we  may  be  inclined  to  believe  that  not  the  least  probable 
hypothesis  concerning  the  "thorn"  or  "stake"  in  the  flesh,  is  that 
the  loving  heart  of  the  Apostle  bewailed  as  his  sorest  trial  the  mis- 
fortune that  by  impatience  in  word  he  had  often  wounded  those  for 
whom  he  would  willingly  have  given  his  life.' 

Farrar  summarises  the  arguments  in  favour  of  ophthalmia :  '  We 
know  that  he  was  physically  blinded  by  the  glare  of  light  which 
surrounded  him  when  he  saw  the  risen  Lord.  The  whole  circum- 
stances of  that  event — the  noonday  journey  under  the  fierce  Syrian 
sun,  the  blaze  of  sun  which  outshone  even  that  noonday  brightness, 
and  the  blindness  which  followed  it — would  have  been  most  likely  to 


302      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

leave  his  eyes  inflamed  and  weak.  His  stay  in  the  desert  and  in 
Damascus — regions  notorious  for  the  prevalence  of  this  disease — 
would  have  tended  to  develop  the  mischief  when  it  had  once  been 
set  up,  and  though  we  are  never  told  in  so  many  words  that  the 
Apostle  suffered  from  defective  sight,  there  are  yet  so  many  undesigned 
coincidences  of  allusion  all  pointing  in  this  direction,  that  we  may 
regard  it  as  an  ascertained  fact.  Apart  from  the  initial  probability  that 
eyes  which  had  once  been  so  seriously  affected  would  be  liable  to 
subsequent  attacks  of  disease,  we  have  the  following  indications  : 
(i)  When  speaking  of  his  infirmity  to  the  Galatians,  St.  Paul  implies 
that  it  might  well  have  rendered  him  an  object  of  loathing ;  and  this 
is  pre-eminently  the  case  with  acute  ophthalmia.  The  most  dis- 
tressing objects,  next  to  the  lepers,  which  the  traveller  will  ever  see 
in  the  East — those  who  will  most  make  him  inclined  to  turn  away  his 
face  with  a  shudder  of  pity  and  almost  involuntary  disgust — are  pre- 
cisely those  who  are  the  victims  of  this  disease.  (2)  And  this  would 
give  a  deeper  pathos  and  meaning  to  the  Apostle's  testimony  that  the 
Galatians,  in  the  first  flush  of  their  Gospel  joy,  when  they  looked  on 
the  preacher  of  those  good  tidings  as  an  angel  of  God,  would,  had  it 
been  possible,  have  dug  out  their  eyes  in  order  to  place  them  at  the 
sufferer's  service.  (3)  The  term,  "a  stake  in  the  flesh,"  would  be 
most  appropriate  to  such  a  malady,  because  all  who  have,  been  attacked 
with  it  know  that  the  image  which  it  recalls  most  naturally  is  that  of 
a  sharp  splinter  run  into  the  eye.  (4)  Moreover,  it  would  be  ex- 
tremely likely  to  cause  epileptic  or  other  symptoms,  since  in  severe 
attacks  it  is  often  accompanied  by  cerebral  disturbance.  (5)  In 
spite  of  the  doubt  which  has  been  recently  thrown  on  the  commonly 
accepted  meaning  of  the  expression  which  St.  Paul  uses  to  the  Gala- 
tians, "Ye  see  in  what  large  letters  I  write  to  you  with  my  own  hand," 
it  must  at  any  rate  be  admitted  that  it  suits  well  with  the  hypothesis 
of  a  condition  which  rendered  it  painful  and  difficult  to  write  at  all. 
That  this  was  St.  Paul's  normal  condition  seems  to  result  from  his 
almost  invariable  practice  of  employing  an  amanuensis,  and  only 
adding  in  autograph  the  few  last  words  of  greeting  or  blessing,  which 
were  necessary  for  the  identification  of  his  letters  in  an  age  in  which 
religious  forgeries  were  by  no  means  unknown.  (6)  It  is  obvious, 
too,  that  an  ocular  deformity,  caused  as  this  had  been,  might  well  be 
compared  to  the  brand  fixed  by  a  master  on  his  slave.  (7)  Lastly, 
there  is  no  other  reasonable  explanation  of  the  circumstance  that, 
when  St.  Paul  had  uttered  an  indignant  answer  to  the  high  priest, 
and  had  been  rebuked  for 'it,  he  at  once  frankly  offered  his  apology 
by  saying  that  "  he  had  not  recognised  the  speaker  to  have  been  the 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  MOON.  303 

high  priest."  Now,  considering  the  position  of  the  high  priest  as 
Nasi  of  the  Sanhedrin,  seated  at  the  end  of  the  hall,  with  the  Ab 
Beth  Din  on  one  side  of  him,  and  the  Chacham  on  the  other,  it  is 
almost  inconceivable  that  Paul  should  not  have  been  aware  of  his 
rank  if  he  had  not  suffered  from  defective  sight.  All  that  his  blurred 
vision  took  in  was  a  white  figure,  nor  did  he  see  this  figure  with  suffi- 
cient clearness  to  be  able  to  distinguish  that  the  overbearing  tyrant 
was  no  less  a  person  than  the  high  priest  himself.' 

The  Influence  of  the  Moon. 

DEUTERONOMY  xxxiii.  14  :  '  Blessed  of  the  Lord  be  His  land,  for  the  precious 
things  put  forth  by  the  moon.' 

Question. — Is  there  any  scientific  basis  for  the  commonly  received 
notion,  that  the  moon  can  affect  injuriously  the  bodies  and  the  minds  of 
men1} 

Answer. — The  idea  is  certainly  sustained  in  tropical  climates. 
The  inhabitants  of  these  countries  are  most  careful  in  taking  pre- 
cautionary measures  before  exposing  themselves  to  its  influence. 
Sleeping  much  in  the  open  air,  they  are  careful  to  cover  well  their 
heads  and  faces.  It  has  been  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  moon 
smites  as  well  as  the  sun,  causing  blindness  for  a  time,  and  even  dis- 
tortion of  the  features. 

In  Montgomery  Martin's  *  History  of  the  British  Colonies '  we 
have  the  following  account  of  the  influence  of  the  moon :  '  In  con- 
sidering the  climate  of  tropical  countries,  the  influence  of  the  moon 
seems  to  be  entirely  overlooked  ;  and  surely,  if  the  tides  of  the  ocean 
are  raised  from  their  fathomless  bed  by  lunar  power,  it  is  not  too 
much  to  assert  that  the  tides  of  the  atmosphere  are  liable  to  a 
similar  influence.  This  much  is  certain,  that  in  the  low  lands  of 
tropical  climates  no  attentive  observer  of  nature  will  fail  to  witness 
the  power  exercised  by  the  moon  over  the  seasons,  and  also  on 
animal  and  vegetable  nature.  As  regards  the  latter,  it  may  be  stated 
that  there  are  thirteen  springs  and  thirteen  autumns  in  Demerara  in 
the  year ;  for  so  many  times  does  the  sap  of  trees  ascend  to  the 
branches,  and  descend  to  the  roots.  For  example,  the  wallaba  (a 
resinous  tree,  common  in  the  Demerara  woods,  somewhat  resembling 
mahogany),  if  cut  down  in  the  dark  a  few  days  before  the  new  moon, 
is  one  of  the  most  durable  woods  in  the  world  for  house-building, 
etc.  ;  in  that  state,  attempt  to  split  it,  and  with  the  utmost  difficulty 
it  will  be  riven  in  the  most  jagged,  unequal  manner  that  can  be 
imagined.  Cut  down  another  wallaba,  that  grew  within  a  few  yards 


304      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  the  former,  at  full  moon,  and  the  tree  can  be  easily  split  into  the 
finest  smooth  shingles,  of  any  desired  thickness,  or  into  staves  for 
making  casks ;  but  if  in  this  state  it  be  applied  to  house-building,  it 
speedily  decays.  Again,  bamboos,  as  thick  as  a  man's  arm,  are 
sometimes  used  for  paling,  etc. ;  if  cut  at  the  dark  moon,  they  will 
endure  for  ten  or  twelve  years  ;  if  at  full  moon,  they  will  be  rotten  in 
two  or  three  years :  thus  it  is  with  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  forest  trees. 
Of  the  effects  of  the  moon  on  animal  life  very  many  instances  could 
be  cited.  I  have  seen  in  Africa  the  newly-littered  young  perish  in  a 
few  hours  at  the  mother's  side,  if  exposed  to  the  rays  of  the  full 
moon  ;  fish  become  rapidly  putrid ;  and  meat,  if  left  exposed,  in- 
curable or  unpreservable  by  salt.  The  mariner,  heedlessly  sleeping 
on  deck,  becomes  afflicted  with  nyctolopia,  or  "  night-blindness,"  at 
times  the  face  hideously  swollen,  if  exposed  during  sleep  to  the 
moon's  rays  ;  the  maniac's  paroxysms  renewed  with  fearful  vigour  at 
the  full  and  change  ;  and  the  cold,  damp  chill  of  the  ague  superven- 
ing on  the  ascendancy  of  this  apparently  mild  yet  powerful  luminary. 
Let  her  influence  over  this  earth  be  studied ;  it  is  more  powerful 
than  is  generally  known.' 

The  popular  belief  that  the  moon's  rays  will  cause  madness  in  any 
person  who  sleeps  exposed  to  them  has  long  been  felt  to  be  absurd  ; 
and  yet  it  has  appeared  to  have  its  source  in  undoubted  facts.  Some 
deleterious  influence  is  experienced  by  those  who  rashly  court 
slumber  in  full  moonshine,  and  probably  there  is  no  superstition  to 
which  the  well-to-do  pay  more  attention.  Windows  are  often  care- 
fully covered,  to  keep  the  moonbeams  from  entering  sleeping-rooms. 
A  gentleman  living  in  India  furnishes  Nature  with  an  explanation  of 
this  phenomenon,  which  is,  at  least,  plausible.  He  says  :  '  It  has 
often  been  observed  that  when  the  moon  is  full,  or  near  its  full  time, 
there  are  rarely  any  clouds  about.  And  if  there  be  clouds  before  the 
full  moon  rises,  they  are  soon  dissipated ;  and,  therefore,  a  perfectly 
clear  sky  with  a  bright  full  moon  is  frequently  observed.  A  clear 
sky  admits  of  rapid  radiation  of  heat  from  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
and  any  person  exposed  to  such  radiation  is  sure  to  be  chilled  by 
rapid  loss  of  heat.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances paralysis  of  one  side  of  the  face  is  sometimes  likely  to 
occur  from  chill,  as  one  side  of  the  face  is  more  likely  to  be  exposed 
to  rapid  radiation  and  consequent  loss  of  its  heat.  This  chill  is 
more  likely  to  occur  when  the  sky  is  perfectly  clear.  I  have  often 
slept  in  the  open  air  in  India  on  a  clear  summer  night,  when  there 
was  no  moon ;  and,  although  the  first  part  of  the  night  may  have 
been  hot,  yet  toward  two  or  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  the  chill 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  MOON.  305 

has  been  so  great  that  I  have  often  been  awakened  by  an  ache  in  my 
forehead,  which  I  as  often  have  counteracted  by  wrapping  a  hand- 
kerchief round  my  head  and  drawing  the  blanket  over  my  face.  As 
the  chill  is  likely  to  be  greatest  on  a  very  clear  night,  and  the  clearest 
nights  are  likely  to  be  those  on  which  there  is  a  bright  moonshine,  it 
is  very  possible  that  neuralgia,  paralysis,  or  other  similar  injury 
caused  by  sleeping  in  the  open  air,  has  been  attributed  to  the  moon, 
when  the  proximate  cause  may  really  have  been  the  chill,  and  the 
moon  only  a  remote  cause,  acting  by  dissipating  the  clouds  and  haze 
(if  it  do  so),  and  leaving  a  perfectly  clear  sky  for  the  play  of  radiation 
into  space.' — The  Galaxy. 


SUB-SECTION  III. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  GEOLOGY,  GEOGRAPHY, 
AND  TOPOGRAPHY. 


Agreement  of  Mosaic  Creation  with  Geology. 

GENESIS  ii.  4  :  'These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth,  when 
they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.' 

Question. — How  has  the  progress  of  geological  science  affected  the 
Mosaic  record? 

Answer. — While  the  record  has  remained  the  same,  the  scientific 
points  of  view  from  which  it  is  regarded  have  materially  changed, 
and  are  continually  changing.  Geology  at  first  fashioned  an  explana- 
tion of  existing  phenomena  by  imagining  a  long  continued  series  of 
catastrophes.  Now  it  is  trying  to  re-read  the  story  of  the  earth  in  the 
light  of  a  theory  of  evolution.  We  are  not  called  upon  to  endeavour 
to  square  Bible  records  with  any  scientific  theory  that  may  be 
fashionable  in  any  age.  We  are  required  to  find  essential  harmony 
between  the  broad,  general  facts  of  Bible  statement,  and  the  broad, 
general  facts  of  scientific  discovery.  Such  essential  harmony  has 
been  shown  over  and  over  again  by  men  who  must  be  recognised  as 
fully  competent  to  deal  with  geological  questions. 

Many  of  the  efforts  to  make  geological  conclusions  accord  with 
Bible  statements  we  cannot  but  regard  as  mischievous,  because  lay- 
ing upon  the  early  narration  a  burden  which  it  was  never  intended 
to  bear,  and  was  wholly  unfitted  to  bear.  The  possible  questions  that 
may  be  asked  are  indeed  all  settled  if  we  can  answer  them  by  saying, 

20 


306      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

that  God  gave  these  early  chapters  of  Genesis  to  Moses  as  a  direct 
and  immediate  revelation.  But  very  few  intelligent  persons  find 
themselves  able  to  take  this  ground.  It  is  not  God's  way  of  dealing 
with  men  thus  to  act  directly.  He  uses  agencies.  It  is  not  fitting 
that  we  should  even  think  of  placing  limitations  on  the  agencies  God 
may  use,  and  it  may  please  Him  to  employ  the  legends  of  pre-historic 
times,  as  well  as  the  written  records  of  historic  times.  It  is  better 
that  we  should  distinctly  recognise  the  legendary  character  of  the 
early  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  see  what  we  call  '  history '  in  its 
beginnings,  and  then  only  in  its  initial  stages,  in  the  records  of 
Abraham. 

Legendary  matter  must  of  necessity  be  largely  imaginative  and 
poetical ;  it  cannot  be  strictly  descriptive.  And  if  we  think  closely, 
we  shall  be  willing  to  admit  that  a  description  of  the  processes  of 
creation  is  impossible  in  these  scientific  days,  and  must  have  been — 
if  we  may  so  speak — even  more  impossible  in  those  unscientific  days. 
Only  certain  broad  features  could  be  seized  and  exhibited  :  details  of 
processes  working  through  countless  ages  could  find  no  fitting 
human  language  in  which  they  could  be  clothed.  It  is  poetry,  not 
prose,  that  recounts  such  things  as  creation.  And  poetry  utterly 
refuses  to  be  imprisoned  by  scientific  fact.  Poetry  sees  things  with 
a  glamour  on  them. 

But  what  needs  to  be  clearly  seen,  what  comes  out  fully  from  the 
strife  over  the  first  chapters  of  our  Bible,  is  this  :  Legendary  matter 
can  be  made  revelational  of  moral  and  religious  truth ;  and  the 
moral  purpose  of  these  first  chapters  can  be  fully  secured,  whether 
modern  science  can  or  cannot  fit  its  conclusions  to  the  Bible  state- 
ments. We  are,  indeed,  lifted  away  from  a  merely  scientific  interest 
in  these  early  world  legends,  when  we  can  clearly  see  the  moral 
purposes  for  which  they  are  preserved. 

This  point  has  been  efficiently  stated  in  the  following  passage  : 
'  The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  introduction  to  a  Book  which  is 
to  contain  the  records  of  God's  more  direct  dealings  with  man,  the 
highest — the  distinctly  unique — creature  which  He  was  pleased 
to  make.  Unique,  as  a  creature  subject  to  all  the  natural  laws  by 
which  he  was  surrounded,  yet  endowed  with  a  marvellous  power  of 
independent  will,  which  would  enable  him  to  mould,  and  modify, 
and  control  both  those  laws,  and  all  other  living  creatures.  It  does 
not,  therefore,  consist  of  a  really  precise  and  definite  account  of  the 
processes  of  creation ;  but,  in  view  of  its  main  and  high  object,  it 
contains  a  series  of  distinct  and  repeated  affirmations  of  God's  supreme 
relations  to  all  forms  of  existence,  in  all  their  order,  all  their  origin, 


MOSAIC  CREATION  AND  GEOLOGY.  307 

all  their  growth,  all  their  relations.  It  is  designed  to  impress  on  us 
that  the  world  was  not  created  by  chance,  by  self-generation,  by 
impersonal  powers  of  nature,  or  by  many  agents  acting  either  in 
harmony  or  in  antagonism.  God  is  distinct  from  that  He  has  made. 
God  is  the  one  primal  source  of  all  things.  God's  will  is  represented 
in  all  laws  that  rule.  God's  good  pleasure  shapes  all  ends.  The 
proper  religious  object  of  this  chapter  is  reached  when  it  has  strongly 
impressed  on  mind  and  heart  the  existence,  independence,  and 
personality  of  one  Divine  Being,  the  universality  of  His  rule,  the 
omnipotency  of  His  power,  and  the  eternal  persistence  of  His 
relationship  to  the  world  He  has  created.' — '  Age  of  Great 
Patriarchs,'  p.  44. 

Some  opinions  on  the  relations  of  geological  science  to  the 
narrative  of  the  creation  may  be  interesting,  and  also  helpful  to  the 
formation  of  a  sound  judgment  on  this  subject. 

Dr.  Rainy  says  :  *  That  this  chapter  is  very  different,  both  in  what 
it  says  and  in  what  it  leaves  unsaid,  from  what  many  persons  think 
they  might  expect,  in  view  of  all  that  is  known  of  geological  eras  and 
processes,  may  be  granted.' 

Dr.  Harold  Browne  writes  :  '  While  we  cannot  say  that  we  have  in 
it  a  detailed  scientific  account,  which  may  be  tested  at  every  point  by 
the  discoveries  of  geologists,  we  can  safely  affirm  that  the  general  out- 
line and  order  indicated  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  geological 
conclusions.' 

Dr.  McCausland  says  :  '  A  correct  reading  of  the  Mosaic  narra- 
tive, and  a  competent  knowledge  of  geological  facts,  have  made  it 
plain  that  Scripture  and  science  tell  one  and  the  same  wondrous 
tale/ 

Dr.  Pusey  very  pertinently  remarks  :  *  It  would  be  well  for  geology 
to  come  to  a  result  within  itself  before  turning  its  results  against 
revelation.' 

Dr.  Geikie  collects  a  number  of  early  legends  of  creation,  with  a 
view  to  showing  the  superiority  of  those  preserved  for  us  in  the 
Bible.  And  he  points  out  the  moral  bearing  of  the  Bible  record : 
1  In  language,  the  simplicity  of  which  befits  the  remote  antiquity  in 
which  it  was  uttered,  it  declares  the  absolute  and  eternal  distinction 
between  the  creation  and  the  Creator,  and  between  the  creature  and 
Him  who  formed  it.'  '  The  God  of  Moses  stands  in  the  strongest 
contrast  with  all  conceptions  of  the  Divine  Being  attained  by  unaided 
reason.' 

Professor  W.  Griffiths  closes  a  chapter  on  the  creation  with  these 
words  :  '  Science,  when  hand  in  hand  with  faith,  does  not  demur  to 

20 — 2 


3o8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  first  words  of  the  Bible,  and  refuse  to  pass  the  portal  of  Revela- 
tion, but  freely  enters  the  new  temple  of  Truth,  to  pay  her  homage 
at  its  shrine.' 

From  the  strictest  orthodox  standpoint,  Dr.  Pierson  writes,  in  his 
recent  work,  '  Infallible  Proofs  ' :  *  Geology  teaches  a  watery  waste, 
whose  dense  vapours  shut  out  light.  Moses  affirms  that,  at  first,  the 
earth  was  formless  and  void,  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep.  Geology  makes  life  to  precede  light,  and  the  life  develops 
beneath  the  deep.  Moses  presents  the  creative  spirit  as  brooding 
over  that  great  deep  before  God  said,  "  Let  light  be."  Geology 
makes  the  atmosphere  to  form  an  expanse  by  lifting  watery  vapours 
into  clouds,  and  so  separating  the  fountains  of  waters  above  from 
those  below.  Moses  affirms  the  same.  Geology  tells  us  that 
continents  next  lifted  themselves  from  beneath  the  great  deep,  and 
bore  vegetation.  Moses  also  declares  that  the  dry  land  appeared, 
and  brought  forth  grass,  herb,  and  the  tree,  exactly  correspondent  to 
the  three  orders  of  primeval  vegetation  !  Geology  then  asserts  that 
the  heavens  became  cleared  of  cloud,  and  the  sun  and  moon  and 
stars  appeared.  Moses  does  not  say  that  God  created  all  these 
heavenly  bodies  on  the  fourth  creative  day,  but  that  they  then  began 
to  serve  to  divide  day  from  night,  and  to  become  signs  for  seasons,, 
days,  and  years  !  Geology  then  shows  us  sea-monsters,  reptiles,  and 
winged  creatures.  Moses  likewise  reveals  the  waters  bringing  forth 
moving  and  creeping  creatures,  and  fowl  flying  in  the  expanse.. 
Geology  unfolds  next  the  race  of  quadruped  mammals;  and  so- 
Moses  makes  cattle  and  beasts  of  the  earth  to  follow,  in  the  same 
order,  and  on  the  sixth  day  of  creation.  Geology  brings  man  on  the 
scene  last  of  all,  and  so  does  Moses.  Geology  makes  the  first  light 
and  heat  not  solar,  but  chemical,  or  "  cosmical."  Moses  makes  light 
to  precede  the  first  appearance  of  the  sun  by  the  space  of  three 
creative  days  !  Look  at  the  order  of  animal  creation  !  Geology  and 
comparative  anatomy  combine  to  teach  that  the  order  of  creation  was 
from  lower  to  higher.  Fish,  proportion  of  brain  and  spinal  cord,. 
2  to  i ;  reptiles,  2^  to  i ;  birds,  3  to  i ;  mammals,  4  to  i  ;  man,  33. 
to  i.  Now  this  is  exactly  the  order  of  Moses.' 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  sentences  richer  in  practical  wisdom, 
or  more  needing  to  be  spoken  over  and  over  again,  than  the  follow- 
ing, penned  by  Dean  Payne  Smith :  l  The  unwise  disputes  between 
science  and  theology  almost  always  arise  from  scientific  men  crying 
aloud  that  some  new  theory  just  hatched  is  a  dis-proof  of  the  super- 
natural, and  from  theologians  debating  each  new  theory  on  the 
ground  of  Scriptural  exposition.  It  is  but  just  to  the  author  of 


MOSAIC  CREATION  AND  GEOLOGY.  309 

Evolution  to  say  that  he  never  made  this  mistake.  Really,  every 
scientific  hypothesis  must  be  proved  or  disproved  on  the  ground  of 
science  alone  ;  but  when  the  few  survivors  of  the  very  many  theories 
which  scientific  men  suggest  have  attained  to  the  rank  of  scientific 
/erities,  then  at  last  the  necessity  arises  of  comparing  them  with 
Holy  Scripture ;  for  we  could  not  believe  it  to  be  the  Word  of  God 
if  it  contradicted  the  Book  of  Nature,  which  also  comes  from  Him. 
Gk>d  is  truth,  and  His  revealed  Word  must  be  true.' 

A  recent  article  by  Mr.  W.  E.  Gladstone,  on  the  Mosaic  account 
3f  the  creation,  concludes  with  the  following  words,  after  a  careful 
dealing  with  some  of  the  best  known  c  contradictionist '  criticisms  : 
We  may  justly  render  our  thanks  to  Dana,  Guyot,  Dawson,  Stokes, 
md  other  scientific  authorities,  who  seem  to  find  no  cause  for 
supporting  the  broad  theory  of  contradiction.  For  myself,  I  cannot 
Dut  at  present  remain  before  and  above  all  things  impressed  with  the 
profound  and  marvellous  wisdom  which  has  guided  the  human 
nstrument,  whether  it  were  pen  or  tongue,  which  was  first  commis- 
doned  from  on  high  to  hand  onwards  for  our  admiration  and 
nstmction  this  wonderful,  this  unparalleled  relation.  And  I  submit 
o  my  readers  that  my  words  were  not  wholly  idle  words  when,  with- 
>ut  presuming  to  lay  down  any  universal  and  inflexible  proposition, 
md  without  questioning  any  single  contention  of  persons  specially 
qualified,  I  said  that  the  true  question  was  whether  the  words  of  the 
Vtosaic  writer,  taken  as  a  whole,  do  not  stand,  according  to  our 
>resent  knowledge,  in  such  a  relation  to  the  facts  of  nature  as  to 
varrant  and  require  thus  far  the  conclusion  that  the  Ordainer  of 
Mature,  and  the  Giver  or  Guide  of  the  creation  story,  are  one  and 
he  same.' 

Note. — Our  readers  may  be  glad  to  have  one  early  legend  of 
xeation,  with  which  to  compare  and  contrast  the  Bible  record.  We 
;ive  the  Babylonian,  as  preserved  by  Berosus,  who  lived  B.C.  260  : 
In  the  beginning  all  was  darkness  and  water,  and  therein  were 
;enerated  monstrous  animals  of  strange  and  peculiar  form.  There 
/ere  men  with  two  wings,  and  some  even  with  four,  and  two  faces  ; 
nd  others  with,  two  heads,  a  man's  and  a  woman's,  on  one  body  ; 
nd  there  were  men  with  the  heads  and  horns  of  goats,  and  men  with 
loofs  like  horses,  and  some  with  the  upper  parts  of  a  man  joined  to. 
he  lower  parts  of  a  horse,  like  centaurs ;  and  there  were  bulls  with 
iuman  heads,  dogs  with  four  bodies  and  with  fishes'  tails,  and  horses 
/ith  dogs'  heads,  creatures  with  heads  and  bodies  of  horses,  but  with 
ails  of  fish,  and  other  animals  mixing  the  forms  of  various  beasts. 


3io      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Moreover,  there  were  monstrous  fish  and  reptiles  and  serpents,  and 
divers  other  creatures  which  had  borrowed  something  from  each 
other's  shapes ;  of  all  which  the  likenesses  are  still  preserved  in  the 
temple  of  Belus.  A  woman  ruled  them  all,  by  name  Omorka,  which 
is  in  Chaldee  Thalatth,  and  in  Greek  Thalassa  (the  sea).  Then 
Belus  appeared,  and  split  the  woman  in  twain ;  and  of  the  one  half 
of  her  he  made  the  heaven,  and  of  the  other  half  the  earth ;  and  the 
beasts  that  were  in  her  he  caused  to  perish.  And  he  split  the  dark- 
ness, and  divided  the  heaven  and  the  earth  asunder,  and  put  the 
world  in  order ;  and  the  animals  that  could  not  bear  the  light 
perished.  Belus,  upon  this,  seeing  the  earth  was  desolate,  yet  teeming 
with  productive  power,  commanded  one  of  the  gods  to  cut  off  his 
head,  and  to  mix  the  blood  which  flowed  forth  with  earth,  and  form 
men  therewith,  and  beasts  that  could  bear  the  light.  So  man  was 
made,  and  was  intelligent,  being  a  partaker  of  the  divine  wisdom. 
Likewise  Belus  made  the  stars,  and  the  sun  and  moon,  and  the  five 
planets.' 

Mahanaim. 

GENESIS  xxxii.  2  :  '  And  when  Jacob  saw  them,  he  said,  This  is  God's  host : 
and  he  called  the  name  of  that  place  Mahanaim.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  decide  in  favour  of  either  of  the  sug- 
gested places  which  have  been  identified  as  Mahanaim  ? 

Answer. — It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  district  lying  east 
of  Jordan  is  much  less  known  than  that  on  the  west,  and  it  has  been 
subject  to  even  greater  changes.  Moreover,  we  can  never  be  quite 
sure  that  a  name  has  not  been  applied  to  more  than  one  place  in  the 
course  of  ages.  In  this  case  a  tradition  of  Jacob's  time  may  have 
lingered,  and  given  a  name  to  a  city  subsequently  built  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, but  not  at  the  precise  spot,  of  Jacob's  adventure.  There 
was  no  town  in  Jacob's  day,  and  the  name  was  naturally  suggested  to 
him  when  God's  host,  or  camp,  met,  and  seemed  to  join  his.  The 
term  *  Mahanaim  '  means  'two  hosts,  or  camps.' 

It  is  only  possible,  in  this  handbook,  to  deal  with  a  few  specimen 
difficulties  connected  with  the  identification  of  sites,  and  as  this  is 
quite  a  representative  case,  the  summary  of  the  results  of  recent 
exploration  and  inquiry,  as  given  by  Harper,  will  be  suggestive. 
'  Laban  departs.  Then  the  angels  of  God  meet  Jacob,  who  calls  the 
place  Mahanaim  (the  two  hosts).  The  Septuagint  says,  where  Israel 
"  saw  the  camp  of  God  encamped."  Many  have  been  the  attempts 
to  identify  this  place.  Canon  Tristram  thinks  he  has  found  the 
place  in  Birket  Mahneh,  where  there  are  five  fine  ponds — "  Birket  " — 


M AH  AN  AIM.  311 

and  some  ruins.  Dr.  Merrill,  of  the  American  Survey,  does  not 
accept  this  place.  Mr.  Laurence  Oliphant  thinks,  after  an  examina- 
tion of  the  country,  that  Canon  Tristram  is  more  likely  to  be  right 
than  Dr.  Merrill ;  while  Major  Conder  says  the  site  is  unsettled.  He 
gives  many  reasons.  Jacob  was  going  to  Edom  to  meet  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxii.  3).  He  had  sent  messengers,  and  they  had  returned,  hearing 
that  Esau  was  coming  with  400  men.  Jacob,  afraid,  divides  his 
party,  passes  his  wife  Leah  and  flocks  over  the  ford  of  Jabbok,  while 
he  remains  on  the  other  side.  Then  there  is  that  wonderful  wrestling 
with  the  angel,  and  Jacob  calls  the  place  Peniel,  which  means  "  face," 
or  "  appearing  "  of  God.  This  "  Peniel "  would  seem  to  have  been  a 
ridge,  for  Jacob  passed  over  it  as  the  sun  rose ;  and  Conder  suggests 
that  the  high  summit  of  the  hill,  now  called  Jebel  Osh'a,  is  the  place. 
In  Murray's  map  a  valley  called  Faneh  is  marked.  If  this  is  correct 
the  Arabic  word  would  be  a  good  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  Penuel. 
Jacob,  no  doubt,  was  going  on  the  old  pilgrim  road  to  the  north. 
And  we  find  from  Josh.  xiii.  26  that  Mahanaim  is  noted  as  opposite 
the  border  of  Debir — "the  edge  of  the  ridge."  Mahanaim  was  near 
a  wood,  for  Absalom  was  killed  there.  The  slopes  of  Mount  Gilead 
are  clothed  with  woods  of  fine  oak.'  (The  '  wood '  of  Absalom's 
time  is  better  rendered  '  waar,'  or  *  thicket.') 

On  a  later  page  of  his  work,  Harper  favours  the  identification 
suggested  by  Dr.  Merrill,  who  says  that  the  account  given  of  the 
two  messengers,  sent  by  Joab  to  David,  in  the  time  of  Absalom,  gives 
a  clue  to  the  ground.  '  Ahimaaz  wishes  to  run,  Joab  declines  to  trust 
him,  but  selects  a  stranger,  a  Cushite,  to  run,  but  afterwards  allows 
Ahimaaz  to  go,  but  says  he  will  get  no  reward,  implying  that  he 
cannot  possibly  come  in  first ;  but  we  are  told  Ahimaaz  went  "  by  the 
way  of  the  plain."  Doubtless  he  was  familiar  with  the  country,  and 
took  the  easiest  route,  while  the  stranger  might  take  the  direct  line, 
and  yet,  having  to  cross  wadies  and  broken  ground,  his  speed  would 
be  impeded.  Most  travellers  have  suggested  Mahneh,  fourteen  miles 
south-east  of  Bethshan.  These  ruins  cover  about  a  fourth  of  a  mile 
in  extent,  but  do  not  indicate  any  great  age  or  importance,  and  no 
one  could  "  run  by  the  way  of  the  plain"  to  reach  it.  There  is  no 
room  in  Wady  Mahneh  for  troops  to  manoeuvre  by  "  thousands," 
and  the  distance  at  which  the  runners  were  discovered  by  the  watch- 
men is  not  applicable  to  Mahneh.  There  does  not  exist  for  many 
miles  in  any  direction  from  Mahneh  a  region  corresponding  to  a  field 
or  a  great  plain ;  but  six  miles  north  of  the  Zerka,  Wady  Ajlun  is 
found.  It  has  three  names.  There  is  a  large  ruin  called  Fakaris  at 
the  mouth  of  the  wady.  Here  is  an  important  valley,  abundance  of 


312      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

water,  and  the  ruins  of  an  important  city.  Three  miles  further  north, 
passing  about  midway  a  smaller  ruin,  mostly  buried,  Wady  Suleikhat 
is  reached ;  this  wady  bears  the  name  of  El  Kirbeh  in  its  upper 
course.  Here  water  is  abundant,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  wady  are 
the  ruins  of  a  large  city  lying  on  both  sides  of  the  stream.  This  is 
by  far  the  largest  ruin  in  the  Jordan  Valley  east  of  the  river.  Khurbet 
Suleikhat  is  some  300  feet  above  the  plain,  and  among  the  foothills 
in  such  a  way  that  it  overlooks  the  valley,  while  the  road  running 
north  and  south  along  the  valley  passes  nearly  a  mile  to  the  west  of 
it.  The  surrounding  country  is  most  fertile,  and  hence  we  should 
naturally  expect  that  the  principal  city  of  the  valley  would  be  placed 
here.  A  watchman  from  a  tower  could  see  to  the  north  for  a  con- 
siderable distance,  also  clear  across  the  valley  to  the  west,  and  down 
the  valley  to  the  south,  a  long  stretch,  nearly  or  quite  to  the  point 
where  the  Zerka  and  Jordan  unite  at  the  foot  of  Kurn  Surtubeh.  In 
addition  to  these  facts,  if  we  consider  that  the  town  is  double  (Maha- 
naim  means  "  two  camps  "),  that  these  ruins  lie  on  two  sides  of  a 
stream,  their  size,  the  abundance  of  good  water,  the  fertile  region 
round  about  it,  it  would  seem  that  here  the  principality  of  East  Jordan 
in  David's  time  probably  stood.' 

Names  for  Hermon. 

DEUTERONOMY  iii.  9  :  « Which  Hermon  the  Sidonians  call  Sirion ;  and  the 
Amorites  call  it  Shenir.' 

Difficulty. — This  paragraph  indicates  later  knowledge  than  belongs 
to  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  must  be  the  insertion  of  a 
later  editor. 

Explanation.— It  must  be  admitted  that  no  particular  reason 
appears  for  the  insertion  of  this  parenthesis.  Those  for  whom  Moses 
wrote  need  not  have  been  interested  in  the  various  names  for  Hermon, 
and  they  had  no  such  connection  with  Sidon  as  to  make  Sidonian 
opinion  at  all  important.  But  if  we  may  suppose  that  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  was  re-edited,  and  received  its  present  form  in  the 
times  of  Ezra,  we  can  well  understand  how  such  an  explanatory  para- 
graph came  to  be  inserted,  for  in  those  days  the  earlier  name 
Hermon  had  probably  been  dropped,  and  the  range  was  generally 
known  as  Sirion  or  Shenir. 

If  Moses  knew  the  Sidonian  name,  it  must  have  been  through  the 
constant  traffic  which  had  gone  on  from  the  most  ancient  times 
between  Sidon  and  Egypt.  'Syria  was  repeatedly  traversed  in  all 
directions  by  the  Egyptian  armies  from  the  accession  of  the  eighteenth 


NAMES  FOR  HERMON.  313 

dynasty  downwards.  The  transcription  of  Semitic  words  in  the 
papyri  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty  is  remarkably  complete.' 

Dean  Stanley  gives  the  meanings  of  the  various  names  applied  to 
this  mountain  range.  '  Rising  with  its  gray  snow-capped  cone  to  a 
height  of  about  9,500  feet,  it  is  visible  from  most  parts  of  the  Promised 
Land,  and  even  from  the  depths  of  the  Jordan  valley  and  the  shores 
of  the  Dead  Sea.  Hence  it  was  "  Sion,"  "  the  upraised ;"  or  "  Her- 
mon,"  "the  lofty  peak;"  or  "  Shenir,"  and  "Sirion,"  the  glittering 
"  breastplate  "  of  ice ;  or  above  all  "  Lebanon,"  the  "  Mont  Blanc  " 
of  Palestine  ;  the  "  White  Mountain  "  of  ancient  times ;  the  mountain 
of  the  "  Old  White-headed  Man  "  (Jebel  es  Sheykh) ;  or  "the  moun- 
tain of  ice  "  (Jebel  eth  Tilj),  of  modern  times.' 

The  Targums  give  Shenir  as  meaning  'the  rock  of  snow;'  and 
Gesenius  translates  Sirion  as  'glittering  like  a  breastplate.' 

Dr.  Geikie  gives  a  different  rendering  to  the  names.  '  We  were 
now  under  the  very  top  of  Hermon — "  the  Lofty  Height " — famous 
in  Scripture,  known  as  Jebel  esh  Sheikh — "the  Mountain  of  the 
White-haired  Old  Man" — among  the  populations  of  to-day.  .  .  . 
The  Sidonians  knew  it  as  Sirion,  the  Amorites  as  Senir — both  mean- 
ing "The  Banner,"  a  fitting  name  for  the  great  white  standard  it 
raises  aloft  over  the  whole  land.  The  mass  of  its  gigantic  bulk  is  of 
the  age  of  the  Middle  Chalk,  as  shown  both  by  the  prevailing  rock 
and  by  its  fossil  fish  and  shells,  some  of  which  I  myself  got,  thousands 
of  feet  above  the  sea-level.' 

Harper  gives  the  meaning  of  the  word  Shenir  as  '  the  Shining.' 

The  fact  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  the  form  in  which  we 
now  have  it,  represents  the  work  of  an  editor  living  in  the  times  of 
the  Restoration,  is  now  recognised  by  all  competent  scholars ;  but 
there  are  very  different  opinions  as  to  the  amount  of  original  Mosaic 
matter  that  was  placed  at  his  command.  Explanatory  parentheses  to 
bring  a  work  up  to  date  are  the  natural  additions  of  editors. 


The  Extent  of  the  Flood. 

GENESIS  vi.  13  :  '  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come  before 
me ;  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  violence  through  them  ;  and,  behold,  I  will  destroy 
them  with  the  earth.' 

Difficulty. — The  idea  of  the  flood  covering  the  whole  earth  is  given 
up  by  all  well-instructed  persons,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  re-read  the  Bible 
records  in  the  light  of  modern  ideas  and  knowledge. 

Explanation. — It  may  be  well  to  give  first  the  latest  dealing 
with  this  difficulty  from  the  strictly  orthodox  standpoint.  Dr.  A.  T. 


314      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Pierson,  in  his  book  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity,  entitled  '  Many 
Infallible  Proofs,'  says:  'The  Deluge,  as  recorded  in  the  days  of 
Noah,  has  been  thought  to  be  irreconcilable  with  modern  science. 
The  grand  point  where  objections  centre  is  that  of  the  universal 
character  of  the  flood.  As  the  human  race  then  occupied  but  a  small 
part  of  the  globe,  to  submerge  the  whole,  so  that  even  the  loftiest 
mountains  should  be  more  than  covered,  seems  a  needless  waste  of 
Divine  energy,  especially  as  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  the  entire 
atmosphere,  condensed  into  rain,  would  suffice  to  lift  the  seas  to  such 
a  height ;  and  there  are  believed  to  be  many  evidences,  in  certain 
parts  of  the  earth,  that  no  universal  flood  has  prevailed  within  the 
last  6,000  years. 

'  To  these  objections  it  is  only  necessary  to  reply  that  the  moment 
the  Bible  record  is  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  inhabited  world, 
all  difficulties  vanish.  Such  phrases  as  "  the  whole  earth,"  "  under 
the  whole  heaven,"  etc.,  are  frequently  used  in  Scripture  of  so  much 
of  the  earth  as  was  peopled ;  or  even  of  Palestine,  and  the  lands  lying 
about  it.  Terms  of  a  universal  character  are  to  be  interpreted  not 
literally,  but  by  the  design  and  end  of  the  writer.  When  we  are  told 
that  "  all  countries  came  into  Egypt  to  buy  corn,"  what  do  we  under- 
stand ?  Are  we  to  suppose  that,  if  there  were  inhabitants  in  Britain, 
they  journeyed  to  Egypt  for  grain  ?  It  would  take  about  as  much 
time,  in  those  days,  to  get  there  and  back,  as  it  would  to  secure  a 
new  harvest.  But  if  we  understand  that  Egypt  became  a  granary-^ — a 
house  of  bread — to  all  the  district  over  which  the  famine  prevailed, 
the  record  is  plain. 

'Now,  in  the  account  of  the  Deluge,  Moses  is  writing  of  God's 
awful  judgment  upon  the  sin  of  the  race.  His  judgment  fell  upon 
the  earth  for  man's  sake,  and  only  so  much  of  the  earth  as  was  the 
scene  of  man's  sin  was  necessarily  concerned.  If,  then,  we  under- 
stand the  "  whole  earth  "  to  refer  to  the  entire  inhabited  surface,  the 
flood  is  still  relatively  universal,  i.e.,  universal  as  to  mankind,  and  the 
usage  of  similar  terms  in  other  parts  of  Scripture  justifies  such  inter- 
pretation.' 

We  ought  to  inquire  carefully  into  the  ideas  concerning  the  shape 
of  the  earth,  and  the  relations  of  the  sky  to  the  earth,  in  ancient 
times,  and  so  try  to  think  what  ideas  of  the  universality  of  the  flood 
would  come  to  those  for  whom  Moses  immediately  wrote.  A  uni- 
versal flood  is  so  inconceivable  to  us,  because  we  know  that  the  earth 
is  virtually  round ;  but  the  ancients  thought  of  it  as  an  extensive  and 
virtually  flat  plain,  with  only  mountains,  like  mounds,  making  a  rough 
surface ;  and  the  sky  was  a  solid  dome  rising  from  the  edge  of  the 


THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  FLOOD.  315 

plain.  In  fact,  the  earth  and  sky  were  like  a  dish  with  its  cover,  only 
the  cover  was  conceived  as  fastened  to  the  edges  of  the  dish.  Now 
a  person  with  this  notion  in  his  mind  need  not  stumble  at  the  idea  of 
a  universal  flood,  covering  the  very  tops  of  the  hills.  It  is  easy  to 
conceive  of  the  water  rising  the  necessary  height  within  the  limits  of 
the  cover.  We  can  think  of  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  an 
explanation,  but  they  are  difficulties  which  would  not  be  suggested  to 
an  ancient  mind.  The  limited  scale  of  the  flood  is  immediately 
suggested  when  a  truer  view  of  the  shape  of  the  earth,  and  of  the 
relation  of  the  sky  to  it,  is  taught.  It  can  then  be  shown  that  the 
Divine  purpose  was  fully  accomplished  by  a  flood  which,  though 
local,  was  effective  to  the  removal  of  the  race  that  had  sinned. 

There  is  a  question  arising  when  the  local  character  of  the  Flood 
is  admitted,  which  as  yet  has  received  very  little  attention.  Perhaps 
it  is  one  that  never  can  be  solved,  and  must  be  treated  as  belonging 
to  the  domain  of  pure  speculation.  What  race  of  men  is  it  that  we 
are  to  understand  was  swept  away  by  the  Flood  ?  There  were  two 
distinct  human  races — the  Sethite  and  the  Cainite.  Now  the  Cainite 
race  is  removed  from  the  Bible  record  after  a  very  brief  allusion  to  it, 
and  the  Bible  is  wholly  concerned  with  the  Sethite  race.  We  are, 
indeed,  told  that  the  '  sons  of  God '  married  the  '  daughters  of  men,' 
which  probably  means,  that  the  men  of  the  Sethite  race  took  wives 
from  the  women  of  the  Cainite  race ;  and  it  appears  that  the  people 
whose  violence  and  iniquity  aroused  the  Divine  wrath,  and  called  for 
the  Divine  judgment,  were  not  the  original  Cainites,  but  the  children 
of  these  mixed  marriages.  It  is  an  assumption  usually  made  that 
the  Cainites  were  destroyed  with  the  Sethites,  and  that  only  the 
Sethites  re-peopled  the  earth  after  the  Flood.  But  there  is  no  real 
ground  for  any  such  assumption,  and  it  would  be  equally  reasonable 
to  assume  that  the  Cainite  race  was  untouched  by  the  Flood,  which 
bore  relation  only  to  the  Sethites.  This  subject  may  be  referred  to 
again  in  its  ethnological  bearings.  If  the  continuance  of  a  Cainite 
race  can  be  admitted,  the  threefold  original  of  all  existing  humanity, 
through  Noah's  sons,  will  have  to  be  reconsidered. 

This  we  may  take  as  definitely  settled — no  competent  scholar 
would  for  a  moment  attempt  to  argue  the  absolute  universality  of  the 
Flood. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  the  natural  agencies  which 
might  have  been  used  in  order  to  produce  a  vast  and  overwhelming 
local  flood.  Dr.  Geikie  says:  'A  rise  of  220  feet  in  the  volcanic 
region  of  the  Bosphorus  would  effect  startling  results,  for  it  needs  no 
more  than  that  to  spread  an  inland  fresh-water  ocean  from  the  plains 


316     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  the  Lower  Danube  and  Southern  Russia  over  the  areas  of  the 
Black,  the  Caspian,  and  the  Aral  Seas,  with  their  neighbouring 
steppes,  far  and  near — to  create,  in  fact,  a  second  Mediterranean. 
With  the  surface  of  the  earth  rising  and  sinking  by  steady  oscillation 
in  so  many  regions  even  now,  who  can  say  that  the  tradition  is  wrong 
which  ascribes  the  drainage  of  this  vast  region  to  a  volcanic  commo- 
tion rending  open  the  Bosphorus  about  1,500  years  before  Christ, 
and  causing  the  terrible  catastrophe  which  antiquity  handed  down  in 
the  legend  of  Deucalion's  flood — the  flood,  it  may  be,  of  Genesis. 
See  also  '  Hours  with  the  Bible,'  vol.  i.,  pp.  210-219. 

Blaikie  says  :  *  It  is  a  question  among  theologians  and  men  of 
science,  whether  the  Flood  was  absolutely  universal,  or  whether  it 
was  universal  only  in  the  sense  of  extending  over  all  the  part  of  the 
world  that  was  then  inhabited.  We  do  not  here  enter  into  this  con- 
troversy ;  but  we  may  notice  the  remarkable  fact,  that  the  district 
lying  to  the  east  of  Ararat,  where  the  ark  rested,  bears  traces  of 
having  at  one  time  been  under  water.  It  is  a  peculiarly  depressed 
region,  lying  lower  than  the  districts  around,  and  thus  affording 
peculiar  facilities  for  such  a  submersion.  The  level  of  the  Caspian 
is  83  feet  below  that  of  the  Black  Sea ;  and  vast  plains  white  with 
salt,  and  charged  with  sea-shells,  show  that  at  no  distant  period  the 
Caspian  was  much  more  extensive  than  now.  From  Herodotus,  and 
other  ancient  writers,  it  appears  that  at  one  time  the  Sea  of  Azoff  (the 
Palus  Mceotis  of  the  ancients)  was  nearly  equal  in  extent  to  the  Black 
Sea.' 

Heywood  W.  Guion,  of  North  Carolina,  has  suggested  a  theory  of 
the  Deluge,  which  both  harmonizes  all  the  discoveries  of  science 
with  the  record  in  Genesis,  and  may  yet  displace  all  previous  concep- 
tions of  the  subject.  He  takes  literally  the  statement  of  St.  Peter, 
'  The  world  that  then  was,  being  overflowed  with  water,  perished.' 
In  Genesis  we  read,  '  Let  the  waters  under  the  heaven  be  gathered 
together  unto  one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  appear.'  In  both 
passages  there  is  no  hint  of  more  than  one  continent  or  more  than 
one  sea.  The  dry  land  or  earth  seems  to  be  by  itself  in  one  grand 
elevation  above  sea-level,  and  the  waters  gathered  in  one  place.  This 
would  imply,  as  every  scientist  knows,  certain  peculiar  conditions. 
This  solitary  continent,  rising  in  one  mass  from  the  midst  of  one  sea 
that  surrounds  it,  would  present  no  great  inequalities  of  surface, 
though  there  might  be  elevations  that,  compared  with  the  rest,  would 
be  hills,  or  even  mountains ;  there  would  be  a  great  uniformity  of 
climate  and  temperature,  no  rains  or  clouds,  but  heavy  mists  con- 
stantly keeping  the  earth  moist;  and  consequently  vast  vegetable 


THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  FLOOD.  317 

growths,  very  luxuriant  and  abundant,  making  animal  food  unneces- 
sary either  for  man  or  beast — there  would  be  a  paradise  of  verdure, 
and  one  perennial  spring.  This,  Mr.  Guion  holds,  was  the  case. 
At  the  time  of  the  Deluge,  this  huge  dome,  that  rose  out  of  the  water, 
was  shattered  by  volcanic  explosions  and  a  great  earthquake,  and  its 
grand  roof  fell  in  and  became  the  bed  of  what  is  now  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  while  its  shattered  and  irregular  ruin  was  tilted  up  into  the 
great  mountain  ranges  that  line  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Pacific ; 
and  the  bed  of  this  original  ocean  was  lifted  into  the  continents  of 
our  eastern  and  western  hemispheres,  while  the  sea  rushed  into  the 
new  bed  formed  by  the  submersion  of  the  original  continent.  This 
would  give  us,  in  the  new  order  of  things,  great  mountain  ranges,  with 
marked  inequalities  of  climate  and  temperature — and  all  the  pheno- 
mena of  the  changing  seasons,  winds,  clouds,  storms  of  rain  and 
snow,  and  consequently  the  first  rainbow.  Animals  inhabiting  barren 
districts  would  be  driven  to  devour  animals  weaker  than  they,  and 
animal  food  would  become  necessary  to  man.  This  theory  makes 
the  whole  original  world  to  be  submerged,  and  all  the  high  hills 
covered.  The  gigantic  animals  of  that  primeval  continent  engulphed 
in  the  foaming  waters,  and  afterwards  buried  beneath  the  superficial 
mass  of  shifting  soil,  would  furnish  the  remarkable  remains  found  in 
so  many  places,  showing  that  the  creatures  they  represent  were  over- 
taken in  some  universal  catastrophe. 

For  the  Hindoo,  Chaldaean,  and  Phrygaean  accounts,  or  legends  of 
the  Flood,  see  '  Biblical  Things  not  Generally  Known/  Nos.  5,  264, 

564- 

There  is  an  important  principle  of  explanation  of  which  we  need  to 
be  reminded.  A  difficulty  ought  to  be  regarded  as  removed  if  a 
solution  can  be  found  that  is  efficient  and  reasonable,  though  it  may 
not  in  actual  fact  be  the  true  solution.  Science  vindicates  the 
narrative  of  Scripture  when  it  shows  how  an  extensive,  and,  for  the 
then  inhabited  world,  virtually  universal  flood  could  have  been 
caused. 

The  Cities  of  Argob. 

DEUTERONOMY  iii.  4,  5  :  '  And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  that  time,  there  was 
not  a  city  which  we  took  not  from  them,  threescore  cities,  all  the  region  of  Argob, 
the  kingdom  of  Ogin  Bashan.  All  these  cities  were  fenced  with  high  walls,  gates, 
and  bars  ;  besides  un walled  towns  a  great  many.' 

Difficulty. — Some  of  the  descriptions  of  the  buildings  of  this  dis- 
trict seem  to  be  strangely  exaggerated  and  extravagant. 

Explanation. — We  may  often  be  led  into  error  when  testing  the 
descriptions  given  by  travellers  by  our  own  limited  associations  and 


3i8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

knowledge.  The  days  of  extravagant  accounts  of  travelling 
experiences  are  long  since  past ;  and  now  anything  reported  by  one 
traveller  is  soon  supported  or  denied  by  another.  And,  on  the 
whole,  the  statements  made  concerning  the  stone  houses  of  Bashan 
are  found  to  be  true,  with  due  allowance  for  sensational  styles  of 
writing. 

The   careful   observations   of  members   of  the    Palestine   Survey 
parties,  and  such  travellers  as  Schumacher  and  Merrill,  have  been 
gathered  together  in   Harper's  late  work,  '  The   Bible  and  Modern 
Discoveries.'     '  This  region  in  the  Bible  is  called  "  Argob,"  "  a  heap 
of  stones."     It  would  be  difficult  to  mention  a  spot  in  civilized  lands 
which  could  be  compared  to  this  ancient  region  in  regard  to  its  wild 
and  savage  aspect.     It  is  one  great  sea  of  lava.     The  lava-bed  proper 
embraces  about  350  square  miles ;    its   average   height   above   the 
surrounding  plain  is  perhaps  twenty  feet;  but   it  sends  out  black 
promontories  of  rock  into  the  surrounding  plain.      There  are  few 
openings  into  the  interior.      Roads  had  to  be  excavated  to  the  towns 
situated  in  Argob  (now  called  Lejjah,  "a  place  of  refuge").     The 
surface  of  this  "  Argob  "  is  almost  black,  and  has  the  appearance  of 
the  sea  when  it  is  in  motion  beneath  *a  dark,  cloudy  sky  ;  but  this  sea 
of  lava  is  motionless,  its  great  waves  are  petrified.      In  cooling,  the 
lava  cracked  and  split,  so  there  are  great  fissures  and  chasms  which 
cannot  be  crossed.      Often  this  lava-bed  is  broken  into  hillocks,  and 
between  them,  and  also  in  the  rolling  plains,  are  many  intervals 
of  soil,  which  is  of  amazing  fertility.      The  country  is  full  of  extinct 
craters,  too  many  to   number.     The  whole   lava   region   embraces 
several  thousand  square  miles,  extending  to  the  Hauran  mountains. 
The  region  is  not  waterless.     In  many  places  are   copious   living 
fountains,   with  abundant  water,  cool  and  sweet.     Ruins  of  towns 
abound.      The  Arabs  say  that  in  the  Hauran,  which  includes  Argob, 
there   are   quite  a  thousand.      The   Bible   especially  mentions  one 
place,  Edrei,  which  would  seem  to  have  been  the  capital  town  of  Og. 
This  place  has  been  identified  and  visited  by  a  few  travellers.     Its 
present  name  is  Ed-Dera'ah.      It  is  a  subterranean  city.      There  is  a 
small  court,  26  feet  long,  8  feet  3  inches  wide,  with  steps  leading 
down  into  it,  which  has  been  built  as  an  approach  to  the  actual 
entrance  of  the   caves.      Then   come  large   basaltic   slabs,  then   a 
passage,  20  feet  long,  4  feet  wide,  which  slopes  down  to  a  large  room, 
which  is  shut  off  by  a  stone  door ;  so  this  underground  city  could  be 
guarded.     Columns  10  feet  high  support  the  roof  of  the  chamber  into 
which  you  now  enter  ;  these  columns  are  of  later  period,  but  there  are 
other  supports  built  out  of  the  basaltic  rock.      Then  come  dark  and 


THE  CITIES  OF  ARGOB.  319 

winding  passages — a  broad  street,  which  had  dwellings  on  both  sides 
of  it,  whose  height  and  width  left  nothing  to  be  desired.  The 
temperature  was  mild,  no  difficulty  in  breathing  ;  several  cross  streets, 
with  holes  in  the  ceiling  for  air ;  a  market-place,  a  broad  street  with 
numerous  shops  in  the  walls;  then  into  a  side  street,  and  a  great 
hall  with  a  ceiling  of  a  single  slab  of  jasper,  perfectly  smooth,  and  of 
immense  size.  Air-holes  are  frequent,  going  up  to  the  surface  of  the 
ground  about  60  feet.  Cisterns  are  frequent  in  the  floors.  Tunnels 
partly  blocked,  too  small  for  anyone  now  to  creep  through,  are  found.' 

*  In  1874  the  president  of  Queen's  College,  Belfast,  found  a 
curious  old  city  about  two  miles  in  circuit,  the  buildings  of  black 
basalt.  Some  of  the  ruins  were  inhabited,  but  they  were  chiefly 
buried.  The  ancient  houses  were  cave-like,  of  massive  walls,  of 
roughly-hewn  blocks  of  basalt ;  stone  doors  of  the  same  material, 
and  roofs  of  long  slabs  closely  laid  together.  Most  of  the  houses 
were  originally  above  ground.  Others  were  excavated  out  of  the 
solid  rocks.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  thinks  the  threescore  cities  of  Argob 
are  identical  with  the  Bashan-havoth-jair,  i.e.,  cities  of  Jair,  in 
Bashan,  of  verse  14,  and  with  the  'towns  of  Jair,'  in  Bashan,  of  the 
same  number  in  Josh.  xiii.  30;  i  Kings  iv.  13;  and  i  Chron.  xi.  23. 
'  The  Hebrew  word  rendered  "  region  "  means  literally  rope,  or  cable ; 
and  though  undoubtedly  used  elsewhere  in  a  general  topographical 
sense  for  portion,  or  district,  has  a  special  propriety  in  reference  to 
Argob.  This  name  means  stone-heap,  and  is  paraphrased  by  the 
Targums  "  Trachonitis,"  or  "  the  rough  country  ;"  both  titles,  like  the 
modern  Lejah  (or  Lejjah),  designating,  with  the  wonted  vigour  of 
Hebrew  topographical  terms,  the  more  striking  features  of  the 
district.  The  Argob  is  described  as  an  island  of  black  basaltic  rock, 
oval  in  form,  measuring  60  miles  by  20,  rising  abruptly  to  the  height 
of  from  20  to  30  feet  from  the  surrounding  plains  of  Bashan.  Its 
borders  are  compared  to  a  rugged  shore-line,  hence  its  description  as 
the  "  girdle  of  the  stony  country "  would  seem  peculiarly  appro- 
priate.' 

It  hardly  seems  possible  that  travellers  can  exaggerate  in  their 
descriptions  of  so  strange,  so  unique,  and  so  wonderful  a  district. 


32o      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Identification  of  Ur. 

GENESIS  xi.  28  :  *  And  Haran  died  before  his  father  Terah  in  the  land  of  his 
nativity,  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.' 

Question. — Have  recent  investigations  helped  to  fix ,  with  reason- 
able certaitity,  the  situation  of  Ur  ? 

Answer. — Though  the  identification  with  Orfa,  the  Edessa  of  the 
Greeks,  well  known  in  Christian  times  as  the  capital  of  Abgarus,  its 
first  Christian  king,  is  not  absolutely  disproved,  it  is  now  almost 
universally  abandoned.  This  Orfa  was  never  included  within  the 
Chaldaean  boundaries.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Ur  is 
identical  with  Mugheir,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  some 
6  miles  back  from  the  river.  The  ruins  are  40  miles  from  Warka,  90 
miles  from  Niffer,  150  miles  from  Babylon. 

Harper  says  :  '  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  has  been  found,  the  ruins  of 
its  temples  excavated ;  some  of  its  engraved  gems  may  be  seen  in  the 
British  Museum.  The  place  is  now  called  Mugheir,  on  the  western 
side  of  the  Euphrates,  on  the  border  of  the  desert  west  of  Erech — 
low  down  near  the  Persian  Gulf,  and  not  the  Ur  of  most  Biblical 
maps,  near  Haran.  The  name  "  Ur  "  is  Semitic  for  Accadian  eri 
"city."  The  worship  of  Ur  was  that  of  the  moon  god.  Abram's 
original  name  is  found  on  an  early  Babylonian  contract-tablet, 
written  Abu-ramu,  or  Abram,  "the  exalted  father."  Haran,  the  place 
to  which  Terah  emigrated,  was  the  frontier  town  of  Babylonia,  com- 
manding both  the  roads  and  the  fords  of  the  Euphrates.  The  word 
Haran  means  "  road." ' 

Professor  Sayce  says  :  *  It  is  probable  that  Ur  had  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  Semitic  "  Casdim  "  before  the  age  of  Abraham ;  at  all 
events,  it  had  long  been  the  resort  of  Semitic  traders,  who  had  ceased 
to  lead  the  roving  life  of  their  ancestors  in  the  Arabian  desert.' 

An  article  in  *  Biblical  Things  not  Generally  Known '  collects 
some  further  information,  chiefly  from  Professor  Rawlinson :  '  The 
excavations  conducted  at  Ur  have  brought  to  light  the  name  of 
Urukh,  which  seems  to  have  been  borne  by  a  very  ancient  king  of  that 
region.  The  basement  platforms  of  all  the  most  ancient  buildings  all 
through  the  entire  region  were  built  by  this  king,  who  calls  himself  in 
the  inscriptions  on  the  bricks  King  Ur,  and  also  King  of  Accad. 
Professor  Rawlinson  considers  that  he  was  the  immediate  successor 
of  Nimrod,  or,  at  least,  the  oldest  king  after  the  great  hunter  of 
whose  works  any  fragments  at  present  remain.  His  bricks  are  of  a 
rude  and  coarse  make,  and  the  inscriptions  are  marked  by  the  most 


THE  SALT  SEA  AND  THE  SITE  OF  SODOM.    321 

primitive  simplicity.  His  substitute  for  lime  and  mortar  was  either 
wet  mud  or  bitumen,  and  the  bricks  are,  for  the  most  part,  ill-set. 
The  language  of  the  inscriptions  belongs  to  the  Hamitic  class,  and 
on  one  of  the  bricks  occurs  the  inscription  :  "  Urukh,  King  of  Ur,  he 
is  the  builder  of  the  temple  of  the  moon-god."  It  is  chiefly  as  a 
builder  of  enormous  structures  that  Urukh  is  known ;  it  is  calculated 
that  he  used  up  no  less  than  30,000,000  square  bricks  in  the  construc- 
tion of  one  building  alone.  .  .  .  His  erections  are  carefully  placed 
with  the  angles  facing  the  four  cardinal  points  of  the  compass,  and 
they  were  dedicated  to  the  sun  or  moon,  to  Belus,  Bel,  Nimrod, 
or  Beltis.  Rawlinson  places  the  date  of  Urukh's  reign  in  the  time  of 
Terah,  the  father  of  Abraham.' 

Does  the  Salt  Sea  cover  the  Site  of  Sodom  ? 

GENESIS  xix.  25  :  '  And  he  overthrew  those  cities,  and  all  the  plain,  and  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  cities,  and  that  which  grew  upon  the  ground.' 

Difficulty. — The  geological  formation  of  the  district  does  not  admit 
of  our  seeking  for  lost  Sodom  beneath  any  portion  of  the  present  Dead 
Sea. 

Explanation. — There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Dead  Sea 
occupied  its  present  position,  to  its  full  extent,  long  ages  before  the 
time  of  Abraham.  But  the  level  of  its  waters  must  have  varied 
greatly  at  different  times. 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson,  who  writes  on  the  *  Physical  Features  of 
Egypt  and  Syria,'  gives  the  results  of  careful  observation  of  the 
district :  '  Standing  on  the  beach  we  see  before  us  the  placid  waters 
of  this  strange  lake,  blue  and  clear,  but,  owing  to  their  great  density, 
having  a  heavy  and  oily  aspect.  The  shore  on  either  side  is  formed 
of  bare  but  brightly-tinted  cliffs,  running  out  in  a  succession  of 
rugged  points  into  the  sea,  and  capped  by  grassy  peaks  and  table- 
lands. But  flanking  these  original  margins  we  see  successive  flats 
and  terraces  of  gray  marly  beds.  These  are  the  old  deposits  of  the 
sea  when  it  was  larger  than  at  present,  and  among  them  we  find 
gravel  layers  marking  beaches  similar  to  the  existing  margin,  but  at 
higher  levels.  The  lowest  of  these  terraces  is  about  30  feet  above  the 
sea.  A  second  attains  an  elevation  of  100  feet,  and  others  have 
been  traced  as  high  as  1,400  feet.  ...  I  may  state  that  the  deposits 
at  the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  are  evidently  similar  in  kind  and 
origin,  though  different  in  degree,  from  those  which  in  Jebel  Usdum, 
at  the  south  end  of  the  sea,  rise  to  the  height  of  400  feet,  and 
contain  thick  beds  of  rock-salt,  and  gypsum.  At  the  north  end, 

21 


322      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

where  the  principal  supply  of  fresh  water  is  poured  in,  and  the 
evaporation  is  less,  the  deposition  of  salt  is  always  likely  to  have 
been  inferior  to  that  at  the  southern  end,  south  of  the  Lisan 
peninsula,  which  may  always  have  represented  a  bar  or  shallow  in  the 
lake.' 

The  idea  that  the  cities  occupied  positions  south  of  the  Lisan 
peninsula,  and  were  submerged  by  volcanic  action,  has  no  scientific 
basis.  It  is  no  more  than  an  imaginative  effort  to  explain  the  entire 
removal  of  all  trace  of  these  ancient  places. 

SirJ.  W.  Dawson  gives  convincing  proof  that  the  cities  occupied 
what  is  now  known  as  the  '  Plain  of  Jordan,'  to  the  north  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  He  says :  '  It  may  be  affirmed,  in  the  first  place,  that 
Sodom  and  its  companion  cities  were  not,  as  held  by  later  tradition, 
at  the  south  end  of  the  sea,  but  at  its  northern  end,  and  that  this 
must,  at  the  time,  have  occupied,  approximately  at  least,  its  present 
position.  This  appears  from  the  name  "Cities  of  the  Plain,"  or 
Ciccar,  that  is,  of  the  Jordan  valley,  or  the  lower  end  of  it.  It  is  also 
stated  that  Abraham  and  Lot  could  see  this  plain  from  the  high 
ground  between  Bethel  and  Hai,  whence  only  the  northern  end  of 
the  Dead  Sea  is  visible.  Abraham  could  not  see  the  cities  from 
Mamre,  but  he  saw  their  smoke  ascending.  The  most  convincing 
geographical  note,  however,  is  that  in  Genesis  xiv.,  which  describes 
the  invasion  of  Canaan  by  the  five  eastern  kings  in  the  time  of 
Abraham.  They  are  said  to  have  come  down  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  to  have  defeated  the  Hivites  and  Amalekites  on  the  south, 
and  then  to  have  come  up  by  way  of  Engedi,  on  the  west  side  of  the 
sea,  and  to  have  fallen  on  the  Sodomites  and  their  allies  from  the 
south-west.  Thus  the  Book  of  Genesis,  from  which  alone  we  have 
any  contemporary  account  of  these  cities,  fixes  their  position. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  seems  to  think  that  much  may  be  said 
in  favour  of  the  view  that  the  Vale  of  Siddim  corresponds  with  the 
southern  bay  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  admits,  however,  that  there  is  no 
Scriptural  authority  for  saying  that  Sodom  and  the  other  guilty  cities 
were  immersed  in  the  sea ;  and  that  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the 
northern  site  are  very  strong,  and  presented  with  great  ability. 
Harper  has  gathered  up  the  results  of  the  Palestine  Exploration 
Survey,  and  these  distinctly  favour  the  northern  site,  which  is  also 
advocated  by  Tristram  and  Merrill. 

Harper's  passage  may  suffice  in  support  of  the  views  already  given 
from  Dawson  :  '  We  must  now  examine  the  position  "  of  the  cities  of 
the  plain,"  and  see  if  the  commonly-accepted  notion  is  true,  that  the 
Dead  (or  Salt)  Sea  covers  their  sites.  Lot,  standing  on  the  Bethel 


THE  SALT  SEA  AND  THE  SITE  OF  SODOM.    323 

hill,  saw  "  the  Valley  of  the  Jordan."  From  no  hill  there,  except  one 
called  by  the  Arabs  "  the  Hill  of  Stones,"  can  any  view  of  the  Jordan 
Valley  or  Dead  Sea  be  seen ;  and  what  can  there  be  seen  is  the 
northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  the  river 
running  like  a  blue  thread  through  the  green  plain.  The  hills  of 
Engedi  shut  out  completely  all  view  of  the  southern  end  of  the  sea. 
I  have  wandered  over  all  the  Bethel  hills,  and  tested  this  question. 
.  .  .  Again,  look  at  Abraham  at  Mamre,  not  20  miles  off;  he  hears 
nothing,  sees  nothing,  though  he  is  full  of  anxiety,  till,  early  in  the 
morning,  Abraham  got  up  to  the  place  where  he  stood  before  the 
Lord,  and  he  looks  towards  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  sees  the 
smoke.  He  had  heard  nothing,  felt  nothing,  before.  Had  it  been, 
as  some  say,  an  earthquake,  why,  Palestine  would  have  shaken  to  its 
centre  to  make  that  deep  depression.  Geology  proves — as,  in  fact, 
anyone  can  see — that  the  deep  depression  of  the  valley  and  the  Dead 
Sea  must  have  existed  from  prehistoric  times,  when  in  long  ages  past 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the  Red  Sea  were  united  through  the  Wady 
Arabah,  and  the  whole  plain  was  an  inland  sea.  But  we  do  not  rest 
on  these  proofs  alone.  In  Deut.  xxix.  23  it  is  written  :  "  And  the 
whole  land  thereof  is  brimstone,  and  salt,  and  burning,  that  it  is  not 
sown,  nor  beareth,  nor  any  grass  groweth  therein,  like  the  overthrow 
of  Sodom,  and  Gomorrah,  Admah,  and  Zeboim,  which  the  Lord 
overthrew  in  His  anger,  and  in  His  wrath."  Nothing  here  about 
a  sea  covering  the  sites !  And  again,  Deut.  xxxii.  32  :  "  For  their 
vine  is  of  the  vine  of  Sodom,  and  of  the  fields  of  Gomorrah ;  their 
grapes  are  the  grapes  of  gall,  their  clusters  are  bitter."  And 
St.  Peter  (2nd  epistle  ii.  6),  speaking  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  by  fire,  remarks:  "Turning  the  cities  into  ashes" 
Poets  may  write  of 

"That  bituminous  lake  where  Sodom  flamed," 

but  many  things  of  Milton  have  been  accepted  as  Bible  truths  with 
as  little  foundation  in  fact.' 

A  passage  in  Gen.  xiv.  3,  '  All  these  joined  together  in  the  Vale  of 
Siddim  (the  same  is  the  Salt  Sea),'  is  the  only  Bible  support  to  the 
southern  identification ;  and  it  is  at  once  evident  that  this  passage  is 
fully  satisfied  if  we  read  it  *  (the  same  is  the  Salt  Sea  district).' 


21 — 2 


324      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


The  River  of  Egypt. 

GENESIS  xv.  18  :  'In  the  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abram, 
saying,  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the 
great  river,  the  river  Euphrates.' 

Question. — Can  the  identification  of  this  river  with  Wddy  el 
Arish  be  confidently  maintained  ? 

Answer.— The  term  'River  of  Egypt'  naturally  suggests  the 
Nile,  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  there  never  was  any  sense  in  which 
the  territory  of  Palestine  could  be  said  to  have  the  Nile  for  its  southern 
boundary. 

Harper  collects  some  interesting  descriptions  of  the  river,  or  river- 
bed, that  must  be  meant,  first  premising  that  the  word  rendered 
1  river '  is  probably  '  brook,'  or  '  torrent-bed '  (see  2  Kings  xxiv.  7  ; 
Josh.  xv.  4,  Revised  Version).  Mr.  G.  J.  Chester,  writing  of  his 
journey  from  San  (or  Zoan)  to  the  border,  says  :  '  Evening  corning 
on,  I  again  camped  near  the  sea-shore,  and  the  next  morning  arrived 
at  the  Wady  Fiumara,  or  dry  torrent-bed  of  "  El  'Arish,"  so  strangely 
and  misleadingly  termed  in  the  Authorised  Version  "the  river  of 
Egypt."  The  town,  or  rather  village,  of  clay  houses,  stands  between 
the  desert  and  the  sea,  at  the  distance  of  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile 
from  the  latter.  .  .  .  To  the  west  of  the  entrance  of  the  wady,  close 
to  the  sea-shore,  are  the  remains  of  some  ancient  houses.  Occasion- 
ally, in  winter,  when  heavy  rains  have  fallen  amongst  the  mountains 
inland,  the  wady  of  El  'Arish  is  temporarily  a  turbulent  rushing 
torrent.  ...  El  'Arish,  or  rather  the  wady  at  that  place,  is  the  natural 
boundary  of  Egypt,  and  appears  as  such  in  many  maps.'  The  Rev. 
F.  W.  Holland  says  that  this  wady  has  been  traced  from  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea  to  Nakhl;  it  is  really  more  than  100  miles  in  length. 
Professor  Palmer  shows  how  two  great  valleys  drain  the  mountain 
plateau  of  the  Tih  Desert,  and  how  they  '  combine  their  streams,  and 
then,  flowing  into  Wady  el  'Arish,  are  carried  on  to  the  Mediterranean.' 
Dr.  Trumbull  says  :  '  Egypt  proper  is  bounded  definitely  enough  on 
the  east  by  a  line  drawn  from  El  Arish  to  Akabah.'  Harper  adds  : 
'Enough  has  been  quoted  to  show  how  true  was  the  expression 
"brook"  or  "torrent"  of  Egypt,  and  that  it  should  neve  be  con- 
founded with  the  Nile.  So  this,  the  southern  frontier  of  the  Promised 
Land,  is  seen  to  be  a  well-defined  gorge  or  wady,  which  reaches  from 
the  Great  Sea  westward  to  Nakhl,  and  continues  to  Akabah  on  the 
Red  Sea.  If  we  look  at  2  Chron.  ix.  26,  we  read,  "Solomon  ruled 
over  all  the  kings  from  the  river  (i.e.  Euphrates)  even  unto  the  land 


CROSSING  AND  DISASTER  OF  THE  RED  SEA.  325 

of  the  Philistines,  and  the  border  of  Egypt"  The  writer  there  did 
not  confuse  the  "  brook  "  with  the  Nile,  as  so  many  Bible  commen- 
tators do  now.' 


The  Crossing  and  Disaster  of  the  Red  Sea. 

EXODUS  xiv.  22,  28  :  '  And  the  children  of  Israel  went  jnto  the  midst  of  the  sea 
upon  the  dry  ground.  .  .  And  the  waters  returned,  and  covered  the  chariots,  and 
the  horsemen,  and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the  sea  after  them.' 

Question. —  Can  recent  explorations  be  said  to  have  fixed  the  pre- 
cise point  of  the  crossing  and  the  disaster  ? 

Answer. — There  are  still  various  opinions  held,  and  a  certain 
decision  may  never  be  attained  because  of  the  physical  changes  of 
the  district ;  but  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  has  materially  contributed  to  a 
settlement  by  a  careful  geological  examination  of  the  surrounding 
country.  The  chief  points  in  his  conclusions  may  be  given.  '  A 
still  more  important  question  is  as  to  the  precise  locality  where  the 
Hebrews  were  overtaken,  and  where  the  crossing  of  the  sea  occurred. 
It  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  that  no  important  town  or  city  existed 
at  the  locality.  This  is  implied  in  the  description  given  and  in  the 
character  of  the  names  employed.  The  place  of  this  great  event  was 
so  important  that  care  was  taken  to  define  it  by  mentioning  three 
points,  presumably  well  known  to  the  narrator;  but  this  method 
implies  that  there  was  no  one  definite  name  for  the  locality.  All  the 
names  employed  are  Semitic,  and  not  Egyptian,  except,  perhaps,  the 
prefix  Pi  in  one  of  them.  Pi-hahiroth  may  have  been  a.  village,  but 
its  distinctive  character  is  that  of  "  place  of  reeds  " — a  reedy  border 
of  the  sea,  near  the  embouchure  of  fresh  water  from  the  Nile,  or 
Sweet-water  Canal.  Migdol  cannot  have  been,  as  supposed  by  some, 
a  fortified  place.  It  would  have  been  madness,  with 'Pharaoh  in 
their  rear,  for  the  Israelites  to  have  encamped  near  such  a  place.  It 
must  rather  have  been  a  commanding  height  used,  as  the  name 
implies,  as  a  watch-tower  to  command  an  extensive  view,  or  to  give 
signals.  Baal-Zephon — "  the  Lord  of  the  North  " — is  generally  under- 
stood to  have  been  a  mountain,  though  both  Jebel  Attaka  and  the 
northern  peak  of  Jebel  er  Rabah  may  lay  claim  to  the  title.  In  any 
case,  the  place  so  named  by  Moses  was  "  opposite"  to  the  camp  of 
the  Israelites,  and  consequently  across  the  sea. 

'  After  somewhat  careful  examination  of  the  country,  I  believe  that 
only  one  place  can  be  found  to  satisfy  these  conditions  of  the  Mosaic 
narrative,  namely,  the  south  part  of  the  Bitter  Lake,  between  station 
Fayid  on  the  railway,  and  station  Geneffeh.  Near  this  place  are 


326      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

some  inconsiderable  ancient  ruins,  and  flats  covered  with  Arundo 
and  Scirpus,  which  may  represent  Pi-hahiroth.     On  the  west  is  the 
somewhat  detached  peak  known  as  Jebel  Shebremet,  more  than  500 
feet  high,  commanding  a  very  wide  prospect,  and  forming  a  most 
conspicuous  object   to   the   traveller   approaching   from   the  north. 
Opposite,  in  the  Arabian  desert,  rises  the  prorninent  northern  point 
of  the  Jebel  er  Rabah,  marked  on  the  maps  as  Jebel  Muksheih,  and 
which  may  have  beeh  the  Baal-Zephon  of  Moses.     Here  there  is  also 
a  basin-like  plain,  suitable  for  an  encampment,  and  at  its  north  side 
the  foot  of  Jebel  Shebremet  juts  out  so  as  to  form  a  narrow  pass,  easy 
of  defence.     Here  also  the  Bitter  Lake  narrows,  and  its  shallower 
part  begins,  and  a  north-east  wind,  combined  with  a  low  tide,  would 
produce  the  greatest  possible  effect  in  lowering  the  water.  ...  It 
may  further   be   observed   as  an  incidental  corroboration  that  the 
narrative  in  Exodus  states  that  after  crossing  the  sea  the  Israelites 
journeyed  three  days  and  found  no  water.     From  the  place  above 
referred  to,  three  days'  journey  would  bring  them  to  the  Wells  of 
Moses,  opposite  Suez,  which  thus  come  properly  into  place  as  the 
Marah  of  the  narrative,  whereas  the  ordinary  theory  of  a  crossing  at 
Suez  would  bring  the  people  at  once  to  these  wells.     They  are  also 
said  to  have  journeyed  for  three  days  in  the  wilderness  of  Etham, 
and  then  to  have  come  to  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  or  "  the  wall," 
whereas  the  wilderness  of  Shur  is  directly  opposite  Suez,  and  not 
three  days'  journey  to  the  south.     The  three  days'  journey  from  the 
place  of  crossing  would  not  be  long  journeys,  the  whole  distance 
being  about  thirty  miles,  but  there  was  now  no  reason  for  haste,  and 
the  want  of  water  would  not  be  favourable  to  long  marches.' 

For  a  full  study  of  the  question  of  the  extension  of  the  Red  Sea 
northwards  in  ancient  times,  see  Daw  son's  l  Egypt  and  Syria,'  p.  67. 

With  this  view  of  Dawson's  may  be  compared  the  account  given  in 
a  recent  work  on  Exodus  by  Professor  Macgregor.  l  Not  far  from 
Suez,  south  and  eastward  on  the  Egyptian  side  of  the  Red  Sea,  there 
is  a  plain,  which  reaches  inland  some  twelve  miles  from  that  sea.  At 
the  upper  extremity  of  that  plain  there  is  a  height  on  which  is  an 
ancient  fort  named  Ajrud.  This  Ajrud  we  shall  take  as  the  site  of 
Pi-hahiroth.  Pi  means  town.  So  that  Pi-hahiroth  is  Hahiroth-town. 
And  Hahiroth  may  have  dwindled  into  Ajrud.  From  this  Pi-hahiroth, 
at  the  head  of  the  plain,  facing  towards  the  Red  Sea  at  the  foot  of  it, 
we  look  beyond  the  narrow  sea,  on  the  east  side  of  it,  for  Baal- 
Zephon,  which  the  Israelites  saw,  if  they  looked  across  the  sea  from 
this  plain,  between  it  and  Ajrud.  The  geographer  finds  it  by  first 
observing  that  Baal-Zephon  is  a  Zephon  of  Baal.  And  Zephon  is  a 


CROSSING  AND  DISASTER  OF  THE  RED  SEA.   327 

Phoenician  deity  that  was  known  to  the  Egyptians  as  the  foreign  god 
Sutech.  Now  this  Sute'ch  went  into  the  composition  of  the  name  of 
a  city  which  in  old  times  was  on  that  coast  beyond  the  Red  Sea. 
Finally,  we  need  to  have  a  Migdol,  since  that  name,  too,  is  in  the 
history.  And  this  by  some  geographers  is  found  in  Maktal,  an 
ancient  Egyptian  fort  (Migdol  means  "  tower  ")  near  the  site  of  a  well 
named  Bir  Suaveis  (the  well  of  Suez).  This  Migdol,  if  the  Israelites 
were  in  the  plain,  would  be  close  upon  them,  near  the  sea,  while 
Pi-hahiroth  was  behind  them,  on  the  height,  and  Baal-Zephon  was 
before  them  beyond  the  Gulf.  On  their  left  hand  the  Gulf  extended 
much  farther  toward  the  .Mediterranean  than  it  does  at  present ;  and 
the  land  was  much  under  water,  of  marsh,  lagoon  or  lake ;  while 
they  have  further  been  turned  from  that  direction  by  the  formidable- 
ness  of  the  Philistines  beyond  the  head  of  the  Gulf.  But  if  they 
thus  be  intercepted  on  their  left  side,  on  the  right  hand  of  the  plain 
they  have  reached  there  is  broken,  if  not  mountainous  ground,  which 
practically  barricades  their  way  in  that  direction.  And  if,  while  they 
are  thus  shut  in  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  with  the  Red  Sea 
before  them,  the  Egyptians  come  up  behind  them,  where  there  is  the 
height  and  foot  of  Hahiroth,  plainly,  with  no  outgate  but  the  sea, 
they  are,  as  the  history  says,  entangled — caught  as  in  a  trap,  which 
they  have  entered,  and  which  the  Egyptians  have  now  closed  behind 
them.' 

The  Two  Dans. 

GENESIS  xiv.  14 :  '  And  when  Abram  heard  that  his  brother  was  taken 
captive,  he  armed  his  trained  servants,  born  in  his  own  house,  three  hundred  and 
eighteen,  and  pursued  them  unto  Dan.' 

Difficulty. — If  this  is  identified  with  Laish,  it  is  strange  to  find  it 
here  called  Dan,  seeing  that  this  name  was  not  given  to  the  place  until 
after  its  conquest  by  the  Danites. 

Explanation.— At  first  sight  it  may  seem  necessary  to  associate 
the  name  of  this  place  with  Dan,  one  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  ;  but  the 
word  simply  means  '  a  judge,'  and  so  was  in  use  long  before  Dan, 
Jacob's  son,  was  born,  and  may  have  been  the  name  of  a  place 
in  Canaan  in  Abraham's  time. 

Two  very  simple  explanations  of  this  reference  have  been  given. 

1.  Le   Clerc  suggests  that   the  original   name  of  the   fountain    was 
*  Dan  ' ;  that  is,  '  The  Judge,'  the  neighbouring  town  being  Laish ; 
but  that  the  Danites  gave  the  name  of  the  well,  which  corresponded 
with  that  of  their  own  tribe,  to  the  city  as  well  as  the  fountain. 

2.  Keil,  with  Kalisch,  noticing  that  Laish  did  not  lie  in  either  of  the 
two  roads  leading  from  the  Vale  of  Siddim  to  Damascus,  suggest  that 


328      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

quite  another  place  is  referred  to ;  they  think  it  must  be  Dan-Jaan 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  6),  apparently  belonging  to  Gilead,  and  to  be  sought  for 
in  Northern  Peroea,  to  the  south-west  of  Damascus. 

A  traveller  thus  describes  the  situation  of  Laish  :  '  Laish,  or  Dan, 
is  now  called  Tell  el  Kady  ("  the  mound  of  the  judge "),  a  broad 
round  Tell,  a  mile  south  of  Hermon,  and  stands  prominently  on  the 
plain.  Very  fine  springs  exist,  for  the  Jordan  source  is  here.  The 
top  of  the  Tell  comprises  several  acres.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find 
a  more  lovely  situation  than  this ;  even  now,  on  the  west,  are  thickets 
of  oak,  oleander,  and  reeds.' 

Dan-Jaan,  which  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  read  as  '  Dan  in  the 
Woods,'  may  be  the  ruin  Danian,  4  miles  north  of  Achzib,  between 
Tyre  and  Akka,  as  suggested  by  the  Palestine  Survey  party. 

For  the  seizure  of  the  district  of  Laish  by  a  party  of  Danites,  see 
Josh.  xix.  47  ;  Judg.  xviii.  29.  It  seems  that  the  portion  allotted  to 
the  tribe  of  Dan  proved  too  small  for  the  numbers  of  the  tribe. 
Stanley  says  :  '  Squeezed  into  the  narrow  strip  between  the  mountains 
and  the  sea,  its  energies  were  great  beyond  its  numbers.'  They 
therefore  sent  out  spies,  who  tracked  the  Jordan  to  its  source,  and 
found  a  town  known  as  Leshem,  or  Laish,  in  a  most  fertile  district. 
The  inhabitants  were  a  colony  from  Sidon,  and  under  the  protection 
of  Lebanon,  and  in  an  out-of-the-way  spot,  they  dwelt  secure.  Six 
hundred  Danites  from  Zorah  and  Eshtaol  seized  this  town  and  settled 
in  this  district,  adding  it  to  Danite  territory. 

The  original  allotment  to  the  Danites  was  only  about  14  miles  of 
coast-line,  from  Joppa  to  Ekron ;  but  it  was  one  of  the  most  fertile 
tracts  in  the  land,  the  corn-field  and  garden  of  Southern  Palestine. 

Inglis  gives  a  suggestion  which  deserves  attention.  As  this  town 
was  situated  near  the  sources  of  the  river  ]ordan,  it  might  have  been 
known  from  the  earliest  times  as  Dan. 

This  seems  to  be  quite  clear.  The  name  of  the  place,  as  Dan,  is 
not  necessarily  associated  with  the  expedition  of  the  Danites  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges. 

The  Limits  of  the  Solomonic  Kingdom. 

I  KINGS  iv.  21  :  '  And  Solomon  reigned  over  all  the  kingdoms  from  the  river 
unto  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  and  unto  the  border  of  Egypt.' 

Difficulty. — Only  in  a  special  sense  could  the  country  of  Israel  ever 
be  said  to  reach  the  river  Euphrates. 

Explanation.— In  the  boastful  style  of  Eastern  language,  the 
limits  of  a  kingdom  were  made  to  include  not  only  its  natural 
territory,  but  also  the  territory  of  the  countries  that  were,  in  any 


THE  LIMITS  OF  THE  SOLOMONIC  KINGDOM.    329 

sense,  dependent  on  it.  Solomon  exercised  a  suzerainty  over  the 
kings  of  the  countries  lying  north  and  east  of  Palestine,  as  far  the 
Euphrates ;  but  probably  this  involved  little  more  than  the  sending  to 
Solomon  of  a  yearly  present,  as  is  even  now  done  by  some  of  the 
surrounding  nations  which  regard  themselves  as  dependent  on  China. 
This  is  the  special  sense  in  which  Solomon  can  be  said  to  have 
reigned  over  these  kingdoms. 

As  to  the  southern  limit,  the  confusion  of  the  so-called  *  River  of 
Egypt '  with  the  Nile,  has  now  been  fully  corrected.  See  previous 
paragraph  on  the  '  River  of  Egypt.'  Wady  el  'Arish  is  the  natural 
southern  boundary  of  Palestine,  and  equally  the  natural  'border  of 
Egypt.' 

Only  when  the  original  promises  of  God  are  carefully  limited  and 
qualified  can  the  fulfilment  in  subsequent  history  be  recognised.  To 
Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  18)  God  said  :  'Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this 
land,  from  the  River  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river,  the  river 
Euphrates.'  Moses  assures  the  people  by  saying  (Deut.  xi.  24) : 
'Every  place  whereon  the  soles  of  your  feet  shall  tread  shall  be 
yours,  from  the  wilderness  and  Lebanon,  from  the  river,  the  river 
Euphrates,  even  unto  the  utmost  sea  shall  your  coast  be.'  Joshua 
repeats  the  Mosaic  form  of  expression  (Josh.  i.  4) :  '  From  the 
wilderness  and  this  Lebanon,  even  unto  the  great  river,  the  river 
Euphrates,  all  the  land  of  the  Hittites,  and  unto  the  great  sea 
toward  the  going  down  of  the  sun,  shall  be  your  coast.' 

Dr.  Geikie  gives  an  account  of  the  troubles  of  Solomon's  early 
reign,  and  the  way  in  which  they  were  overruled  to  give  him  a 
secure  and  extensive  kingdom  :  '  The  various  warlike  nations  which 
David  had  conquered  fretted  at  their  dependence,  and  hailed  the 
great  king's  death,  and  that  of  Joab,  his  renowned  captain,  soon  after, 
as  the  signal  for  revolt.  Hadad  of  Edom,  who  had  found  refuge  in 
Egypt,  managed  to  escape,  and  flew  to  his  native  mountains,  where 
he  was  forthwith  acknowledged  king  by  many  of  his  countrymen,  and 
was  able  to  give  Solomon  great  trouble,  though  he  never  succeeded 
in  gaining  the  entire  independence  of  his  race.  About  the  same 
time  commotions  arose  in  the  north.  Rezon,  a  Syrian,  formerly 
an  officer  of  the  fallen  King  of  Zobah,  had  risen  as  a  local  chief  even 
in  David's  reign,  and  had  roamed  through  the  deserts  as  a  freebooter. 
On  Solomon's  accession,  an  opportunity  for  bolder  action  seemed  to 
offer,  and,  making  a  swoop  on  Damascus,  he  took  it,  and  tried  to 
make  it  the  centre  of  a  new  power.  He  was  not  able,  however,  to 
hold  it  long,  though  his  audacity  continued  to  disturb  Israel. 
Hamath,  on  the  Orontes,  also  revolted,  but  Solomon  soon  re- 


330      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

conquered  it.  Disturbances  rose,  likewise,  in  the  west,  where  the 
petty  kingdom  of  Gezer,  or  Geshur,  between  the  hills  and  the 
Philistine  cities,  strove  to  regain  its  independence,  probably  with  the 
help  of  various  allies.  The  king  of  Egypt  conquered  it,  and 
handed  it  over  as  part  of  the  dowry  of  the  Egyptian  princess  whom 
Solomon  married.' 

It  does  not  appear  that  Solomon  extended  the  borders  of  his 
country  by  war,  but  he  was  skilful  in  securing  alliances,  and  offering 
protection  to  smaller  states.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  consider 
how  far  David  enlarged  the  boundaries,  and  what  size  the  kingdom 
was  when  Solomon  came  to  the  throne.  By  the  defeat  of  Shobach, 
the  general  of  Hadadezer,  the  kingdoms  of  Rehob,  Maachah,  and 
Tob  passed  under  the  rule  of  David,  and  the  territories  of  Zobah 
became  part  of  the  Hebrew  dominions.  The  Aramaean  King  of 
Damascus  was  involved  in  the  ruin  of  Hadadezer,  and  his  territory 
was  held  by  Hebrew  garrisons.  '  Between  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Lebanon  officials  from  Jerusalem  levied  tribute  for  the  new  Jewish 
empire.'  The  Edomites  and  the  Ammonites  were  conquered,  and 
the  Philistines  were  subdued.  '  The  limits  of  the  kingdom,  a  short 
time  before,  had  been  Dan  and  Beersheba,  on  the  north  and  south. 
But  David  now  reigned  from  the  "  River  (brook)  of  Egypt "  to  the 
Euphrates  ;  from  Gaza,  on  the  west,  to  Thapsacus,  on  the  east ;  and 
from  all  the  subject-nations  in  this  vast  empire  yearly  tribute  was 
exacted;  in  part,  probably,  in  the  form  of  drafts  of  slave  labour  to 
toil  on  the  royal  buildings  and  other  public  works.' 


Whence  came  the  Water  for  the  Carmel  Sacrifice  ? 

^  I  KINGS  xviii.  33  :  '  And  he  put  the  wood  in  order,  and  cut  the  bullock  in 
pieces,  and  laid  him  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four  barrels  with  water,  and  pour 
it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice,  and  on  the  wood.' 

Question. — Have  recent  researches  effectually  removed  the  difficulty 
of  getting  so  much  water  high  up  on  the  mountain  side  ? 

Answer. — It  is  not  only  the  unlikely  situation,  but  also  the  long 
continuance  of  the  drought,  that  has  occasioned  difficulty,  and 
suggested  sceptical  objections  to  the  narrative.  The  River  Kishon 
was  certainly  accessible,  but  its  actual  nearness  depends  on  the 
position  fixed  for  the  great  assembly.  Both  Kitto  and  Thomson  find 
no  natural  impossibility  in  obtaining  the  water  from  Kishon.  There 
were  plenty  of  people  about  ready  to  fetch  and  carry,  and  from  the 
dwellings  of  the  district  buckets  could  readily  be  obtained.  More- 
over, as  Elijah  knew  what  he  intended  to  do,  and  there  were  long 


THE   WATER  FOR  THE  CARMEL  SACRIFICE.     331 

hours  during  which  the  Baal  prophets  were  trying  to  bring  down  the 
fire,  the  messengers  of  Elijah  had  plenty  of  time  in  which  to  fetch 
and  store  large  quantities  of  water  ready  for  the  supreme  moment. 
It  may  be  therefore  firmly  held  that  the  water  may  have  been  brought 
from  the  Kishon. 

A  perennial  fountain  has,  however,  been  found  near  to  the  place  of 
sacrifice,  but  opinion  seems  to  vary  concerning  its  sufficiency  for 
Elijah's  purpose.  On  this  a  few  extracts  from  Bible  writers  may  be 
given. 

Jamieson  says  :  '  Two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  beneath  the  altar 
plateau  there  is  a  perennial  fountain,  which,  being  close  to  the  altar 
of  the  Lord,  might  not  have  been  acceptable  to  the  people,  and 
whence,  therefore,  even  in  that  season  of  severe  drought,  Elijah  could 
procure  those  copious  supplies  of  water  which  he  poured  over  the 
altar.  The  distance  between  this  spring  and  the  altar  is  so  short  as 
to  make  it  perfectly  possible  to  go  thrice  thither  and  back  again ; 
whereas  it  must  have  been  impossible  once  in  an  afternoon  to  fetch 
water  from  the  sea.  The  summit  is  1,000  feet  above  the  Kishon.' 

Canon  Tristram  writes  as  follows :  *  During  my  travels  I  was  in 
the  habit  of  collecting  carefully  the  many  species  of  small  fresh-water 
shells  which  inhabit  the  streams,  fountains,  and  wells  of  Palestine 
Now,  among  the  best  ascertained  and  most  universally  acknowledged 
sites  of  scenes  of  deep  Scriptural  interest,  there  is  none  more  unani- 
mously accepted  than  the  site  of  Elijah's  sacrifice  at  the  east  end  of 
Mount  Carmel.  This  spot  was  first  brought  to  the  notice  of  English 
readers  by  the  Rev.  G.  Williams,  and  has  been  admirably  described 
both  by  him  and  by  Dean  Stanley.  The  name  of  the  place  is  El 
Moharakah,  "the  place  of  burning."  There  is  the  rocky  platform 
standing  out  in  front  of  the  ridge,  there  is  the  gently  sloping  place 
below,  with  the  sides  of  the  hill  gently  spreading  down  to  the  plain, 
and  washed  by  the  Kishon,  as  it  winds  round  the  mountain's  base. 
On  its  bank,  full  in  view,  is  the  artificial-looking  knoll,  or  mound, 
Tell  Kassis,  "  the  mound  of  the  priests,"  where  Elijah  slew  the  pro- 
phets of  Baal.  Close  by  the  place  of  sacrifice,  shaded  by  a  noble 
old  tree,  by  a  rock  on  which  the  king  may  have  sat,  is  a  large  natural 
cistern  of  sweet  water,  which  the  people  of  the  neighbourhood  say  is 
never  exhausted.  One  traveller  remarks  that  in  a  very  dry  season  he 
found  it  nearly  dry  (probably  from  having  been  largely  drawn  upon), 
but  all  others,  at  all  times  of  the  year,  have  found  it  full.  The  exist- 
ence of  this  well  at  once  solves  any  difficulty  as  to  the  copious  supply 
of  water  at  hand  for  Elijah,  wherewith  to  drench  the  altar  and  its 
sacrifice.  My  search  for  shells  illustrated  the  permanence  of  the 


332      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

fountain  in  another  way.  It  is  well  known  that  there  are  many  species 
of  pluviatila  molluscs  which  can  survive  a  long  drought,  buried  in  the 
mud  at  the  bottom  of  pools.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  all  species. 
Especially  the  well-known  genus  Neritina,  of  which  very  pretty  group 
of  fresh-water  shells  one  species  is  found  in  our  English  rivers,  is 
very  sensitive  to  removal  from  water,  and  only  exists  in  permanent 
streams  and  pools.  I  found  Neritina  Michonii,  the  species  common 
in  the  Kishon  and  neighbouring  streams,  in  this  fountain  only  of  the 
neighbourhood.  The  inference  is  plain,  viz.,  that,  when  the  other 
pools  and  fountains  of  the  district  are  dry,  the  fountain  of  Elijah, 
fed  by  the  drainage  of  the  limestone  cliffs  which  tower  above  it, 
continues  to  afford  a  supply,  as  it  did  during  the  three  years  of 
drought. 

Van  de  Velde  says :  '  Two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  beneath  the  altar- 
plateau  is  a  vaulted  and  very  abundant  fountain,  built  in  the  form  of 
a  tank,  with  a  few  steps  leading  down  into  it,  just  as  one  finds  else- 
where in  the  old  wells  or  springs  of  the  Jewish  times.  Possibly  the 
water  of  the  spring  may  have  been  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  so  as 
not  to  be  generally  accessible  to  the  people  even  in  times  of  fearful 
droughts.  In  such  springs  the  water  remains  always  cool,  under  the 
shade  of  a  vaulted  roof,  and  with  no  hot  atmosphere  to  evaporate  it. 
While  all  other  fountains  were  dried  up,  I  can  well  understand  that 
there  might  have  been  found  here  that  superabundance  of  water 
which  Elijah  poured  so  profusely  over  the  altar.' 

Josephus  distinctly  states  that  it  was  from  the  neighbouring  well 
(a-Tro  r5j$  xpjiw)  the  water  was  obtained. 

Geikie  assumes  the  sufficiency  of  the  well.  '  Close  beneath  the 
rocks,  under  the  shade  of  ancient  olive-trees,  is  a  well  which  is  said 
never  to  fail,  and  this,  even  after  the  long  drought,  still  held  sufficient 
water  to  supply  Elijah  with  as  much  as  he  required/  Describing 
more  minutely  in  his  latest  work,  Geikie  says  :  '  There  are  still  some 
fine  trees  in  the  amphitheatre,  overhanging  an  ancient  fountain,  with 
a  square  stone-built  reservoir  about  eight  feet  deep  beside  it,  traces 
still  remaining  of  the  steps  by  which  the  water  was  reached  when  low. 
This  spring  never  dries  up,  as  is  shown  by  the  presence  of  living 
fresh-water  molluscs,  which  would  die  if  water  were  at  any  time  to  fail 
them.  One  can  thus  understand  how,  although  drought  had  scorched 
the  land  for  three  years,  and  the  Kishon,  after  shrinking  to  a  string 
of  pools,  had  dried  up  altogether,  there  was  still  water  for  the  sacrifice 
of  Elijah,  though  he  needed  so  much.' 

Canon  Rawlinson  speaks  of  this  perennial  fountain  as  being  '  fed 
by  the  dews  that  the  wooded  upland  condenses  from  the  moist 


THE   WATER  FOR  THE  CARMEL  SACRIFICE.     333 

Mediterranean  air,  even  when  it  is  not  sufficiently  charged  with 
vapour  to  descend  in  rain.' 

One  or  two  things  need  to  be  considered  by  way  of  correcting  the 
commonly-received  impressions  concerning  this  incident,  (i)  The 
term  '  barrels  '  is  quite  confusing.  No  such  things  as  we  call  '  barrels ' 
could  have  been  found  among  the  people  under  such  circumstances, 
and  it  is  this  word  which  has  suggested  large  quantities  of  water. 
The  term  is  the  same  as  is  used  in  Gen.  xxiv.  14-20,  Judg.  vii.  16,  19, 
and  it  clearly  means  the  common  pitcher,  or  water-jar,  which  the 
maidens  used  to  carry  on  their  heads.  (2)  The  altar  was  only  a 
simple  heap  of  stones,  of  no  great  size,  and  so  lightly  put  together 
that  every  drop  of  water  poured  on  it  would  run  through  and  be 
caught  in  the  trench ;  and  the  trench  was  only  a  big  furrow  hastily 
dug  round  the  stones,  so  as  to  keep  the  water  from  draining  away. 
A  few  pails  of  water  sufficed  to  meet  Elijah's  purpose,  and  prove  the 
impossibility  of  deception. 

This  may  be  regarded  as  an  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  Scrip- 
ture difficulties  are  needlessly  manufactured.  We  imagine  things  that 
are  altogether  beyond  the  record,  and  then  find  all  sorts  of  perplexi- 
ties in  the  endeavour  to  explain  what  we  have  imagined. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  add  Thomson's  criticism  of  the  suggestion 
that  the  fountain  sufficed  to  supply  Elijah's  need :  '  I  cannot  agree 
with  Van  de  Velde  that  the  water  poured  upon  the  sacrifice  was  pro- 
cured from  the  fountain  he  mentions.  The  fountain  was  nearly  dry 
when  I  saw  it ;  nor  do  I  think  that  it  could  hold  out  through  the  dry 
season  even  of  one  ordinary  summer  .  .  .  nor  are  there  any  marks 
of  antiquity  about  it.  The  water  was  obtained,  as  I  suppose,  from 
those  permanent  sources  of  the  Kishon  at  the  base  of  Carmel.' 

Dr.  Kitto  may  be  quoted  as  supporting  this  explanation  of  Thom- 
son's :  '  The  water  thus  copiously  provided  was  probably  from  the 
Kishon,  which,  towards  the  end  of  its  course,  is  supplied  from  peren- 
nial springs  in  Carmel,  where  the  upper  part  (which  is  but  the  bed  of 
a  winter  torrent)  has  become  dry.  Being  so  near  the  sea,  these 
fountains  may  not  have  dried  up  from  lack  of  rain.' 

Identification  of  Adullam. 

I  SAMUEL  xxii.  I  :  '  David  therefore  departed  thence,  and  escaped  to  the  cave 
Adullam.' 

Question. — Have  recent  explorers  succeeded  in  discovering  this 
Interesting  cave  ¥ 

Answer. — The  traditional  site  is  the  cave  at  Khureitun,  5  miles 
iouth-east  of  Bethlehem,  but  this  is  quite  untenable.  Some  are 


334      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

inclined  to  place  it  at  Deir  Dubban,  about  6  miles  north  of  Beit 
Jibrin  (Eleutheropolis). 

M.  Clermont  Ganneau,  however,  was  the  first  to  discover  the  site 
of  Adullam,  and  the  existing  name  of  Ayd  el  Mieh,  which  preserves 
all  the  essential  letters  of  the  Hebrew.  Major  Conder  has  now 
made  a  careful  survey  of  the  spot.  He  finds  the  ruins  of  an  ancient 
town  (Gen.  xxxviii.  i,  12,  20)  strongly  situated  (Josh.  xii.  15,  and 
2  Chron.  xi.  7)  on  the  height  commanding  the  broad  valley  of  Elah, 
which  was  the  highway  by  which  the  Philistines  invaded  Judah 
(i  Sam.  xvii.  17),  and  where  David  killed  Goliath.  Roads  connect 
it  with  Hebron,  Bethlehem,  and  Tell  es  Safiyeh — the  probable  site  of 
Gath.  There  are  terraces  of  the  hill  for  cultivation,  scarped  rock  for 
fortification,  tombs,  wells,  and  aqueducts.  The  *  cave  '  is  a  series  of 
caves,  some  of  moderate  size  and  some  small,  but  quite  capable 
of  housing  David's  band  of  followers.  If  this  site  be  adopted  it  will 
be  seen  that  some  of  the  most  picturesque  events  of  David's  life  are 
collected  into  a  small  area,  bringing  out  most  clearly  the  nature  of 
the  incidents  recorded,  such  as  the  swiftness  with  which  he  avenged 
the  foray  of  the  Philistines  in  Kilah;  the  strong  places  which  he 
held  barring  the  valley  to  the  enemy  on  the  one  hand,  and  protecting 
himself  from  Saul  on  the  other. 

Fuller  details  serve  to  give  us  confidence  that  this  most  interesting 
site  has  certainly  been  recovered.  Harper  says :  '  Adullam  was  a 
city  in  the  low  country  between  the  hill  country  of  Judah  and  the 
sea.  It  was  very  ancient,  being  mentioned  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  i,  12,  20. 
Now  the  great  valley  of  Elah  was  the  highway  from  Philistia  to 
Hebron,  and  Wady  es  Stint  is  identified  with  Elah.  It  answers  all 
the  requirements  of  the  sacred  text.  Eight  miles  from  the  valley 
head  stands  Shochoh.  The  wady  is  here  a  quarter  of  a  mile  across. 
Getting  deeper  and  deeper,  it  runs  between  rocky  hills  to  an  open 
vale  of  rich  cornland,  flanked  by  ancient  fortresses,  and  ends  at  the 
cliff  Tell  es  Safi.  Two  miles  and  a  half  south  of  the  great  angle,  near 
Shochoh,  there  is  a  large  and  ancient  terebinth,  the  tree  from  which 
Elah  took  its  name.  Near  are  two  ancient  wells,  with  stone  water- 
troughs.  A  high  hill  near  is  covered  with  ruins.  Caves,  tombs,  and 
rock-quarryings  exist.  A  building  dedicated  to  "the  notable  chief" 
is  here  placed.  Ruins  below  and  near  the  wells  are  called 
"  the  feast  of  the  water,"  or  "  feast  of  the  hundred."  The  Arabic 
words  are  identical  with  the  Hebrew  Adullam.  We  may,  therefore, 
safely  consider  these  ruins  to  be  the  city  of  Adullam  ;  and  the  cave  is 
on  the  hill.  The  Crusaders  fixed  on  some  caves  east  of  Bethlehem.  We 
know  on  what  slight  grounds  they  identified  places.  The  present 


IDENTIFICA  TION  OF  ADULLAM,  335 

Adullam  is  ruinous,  not  deserted  ;  the  sides  of  the  valley  are  lined 
with  caves,  some  now  used  to  fold  flocks  and  herds.  There  is 
one  separate  cave,  with  ample  accommodation  for  400  men.  The 
hill  is  500  feet  high,  and  the  whole  of  the  country  of  David's  exploits 
with  the  Philistines  is  close  at  hand.' 

In  his  latest  work, '  The  Holy  Land  and  the  Bible,'  Geikie  gives  what 
appear  to  be  the  results  of  personal  observation :  l  About  two  miles 
to  the  south  of  the  scene  of  David's  triumph  the  Palestine  Surveyors 
appear  to  have  discovered  the  Cave  of  Adullam,  so  famous  in  the 
after-life  of  the  Hebrew  king.  It  lies  in  a  round  hill  about  500  feet 
high,  pierced  with  a  number  of  caverns,  the  hill  itself  being  isolated  by 
several  valleys,  and  marked  by  ancient  ruins,  tombs,  and  quarryings. 
At  its  foot  are  two  old  wells  of  special  antiquity,  one  measuring  8  to 
10  feet  in  diameter,  not  unlike  the  wells  at  Beersheba,  and  surrounded, 
as  those  are,  by  numerous  stone  water-troughs.  Near  these  wells, 
under  the  shadow  of  the  hill  which  towers  aloft,  a  veritable  natural 
stronghold,  are  other  ruins,  to  which  the  peasants  give  the  name  of 
Aid-el-Ma,  which  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew  Adullam.  Such  a 
verification  seems  to  mark  the  spot  as,  beyond  question,  that  in 
which  the  famous  cave  should  be  found,  for  it  was  near  the  royal  city 
of  Adullam,  and  the  ruins  on  the  hilltop  may  well  be  those  of  that 
place.  .  .  .  The  road  from  Hebron  to  the  plains  passes  the  hill, 
winding  along  the  valley  of  Elah,  here  called  Wady  es  Sir,  from  the 
side  of  which  the  hill  of  Adullam  rises,  the  road  continuing  down  the 
valley,  which  is  called  Wady  es  Stint,  from  Socoh  to  the  plains.  Other 
roads  trend  off  in  different  directions,  marking  Aid-el-Ma  as  an 
important  centre  of  communication  in  former  ages.  A  cave  which 
completes  the  identification  exists  in  the  hill,  which,  in  fact,  is  pierced 
by  many  natural  caverns.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  one 
used  by  David  was  of  great  size,  for  such  spacious  recesses  are 
avoided  by  the  peasantry  even  now,  from  their  dampness  and 
tendency  to  cause  fever.  Their  darkness,  moreover,  needs  many 
lights,  and  they  are  disliked  from  the  number  of  scorpions  and  bats 
frequenting  them.  The  caves  used  as  human  habitations,  at  least  in 
summer,  are  generally  about  20  or  30  paces  across,  lighted  by  the 
sun,  and  comparatively  dry.  I  have  often  seen  such  places  with  their 
roofs  blackened  by  smoke  ;  families  lodging  in  one ;  goats,  cattle,  and 
sheep  stabled  in  another ;  and  grain  or  straw  stored  in  a  third. 
At  Adullam  there  are  two  such  caves  on  the  northern  slope  of  the 
hill,  and  another  farther  south  ;  while  the  opposite  sides  of  the  tributary 
valley  are  lined  with  rows  of  caves,  all  smoke-blackened,  and  mostly 
inhabited,  or  used  as  pens  for  flocks  and  herds.  The  cave  on  the 


336      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

south  of  the  hill  itself  was  tenanted  by  a  single  family  when  the 
surveyors  visited  it,  just  as  it  might  have  been  by  David  and  his 
immediate  friends,  while  his  followers  housed  themselves  in  those 
near  at  hand.' 

Identification  of  Hormah. 

NUMBERS  xiv.  45  :  '  Then  the  Amalekites  came  down,  and  the  Canaanites  which 
dwelt  in  that  hill,  and  smote  them,  and  discomfited  them,  even  unto  Hormah.' 

Question. — Can  a  decision  be  made  between  rival  candidates  for 
this  site  ? 

Answer. — The  two  suggestions  are:  (i)  Zephath,  south  of  Beer- 
sheba  (2)  Khurbet  Hora,  east  of  Beersheba. 

Harper  says :  '  Zephath,  or  Hormah,  has  not  been  identified, 
though  the  name  Khurbet  Hora  has  been  found  east  of  Beersheba. 
A  low  hill,  an  important  site,  with  wells  and  underground  granaries, 
a  large  bell-mouthed  cistern,  and  five  small  towers.  The  site  occupies 
a  circle  of  one-and-a-half  miles  in  diameter.  Rowlands  thought  it 
was  S'baita,  where  there  are  extensive  ruins ;  a  ruined  fortress  also ; 
it  would  be  near  Geder  and  Arad.  The  latter  is  sixteen  miles  from 
Hebron,  where  there  is  a  large  ruin,  now  called  Tell  'Arad,  on  a  large 
mound.'  After  explaining  the  recent  discovery  of  Kadesh-barnea, 
and  the  correction  of  our  idea  of  the  later  movements  of  the  Israelites 
which  this  discovery  involves,  Harper  adds :  *  It  shows  us  that  the 
Israelites  did  not  use  the  "  Arabah  "  as  their  main  camping  ground. 
That  great  wady,  surrounded  as  it  was  by  their  enemies,  would  have 
been  no  safe  camping-ground  for  them ;  but  stopping  at  Kadesh,  and 
the  desert  near,  they  would  be  out  of  the  track  and  in  defensible 
positions.  So  also  the  traditional  Mount  Hor  must  be  recognised 
as  an  impossible  Mount  Hor.  .  .  .  Blind  to  all  warning,  the  Israelites 
presume  to  "go  up  into  the  hilltop,"  and  are  defeated,  and  discom- 
fited even  to  Hormah.  The  word  means  "banning,"  and  is  identical 
with  Zephath.  This  has  been  identified  by  Palmer  with  "  S'beita," 
and  he  discovered,  close  by,  the  ancient  "  watch-tower  "  (which  again 
is  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word).  This  tower  is  on  the  top  of  a 
hill.  The  ruins  are  primeval,  though  there  are  more  recent  fortifica- 
tions. From  this  fort  the  Amorites  and  Canaanites  most  likely  issued 
to  attack  Israel.  The  Arabic  words  used  for  the  valley  near  the  moun- 
tain mean,  "  the  ravine  of  the  Amorites,"  and  the  mountains  themselves 
are  called  by  a  word  meaning  "  head,"  or  "  top,"  of  the  Amorites.' 

Geikie  adds  some  points  of  interest,  and  favours  the  Zephath  rather 
than  the  Hora  site.  '  The  inhabitants  of  the  region  between  Israel 


CLEAN  AND  UNCLEAN  FOODS.  337 

and  Palestine  were  "  Amalekites  and  Canaanites,"  who  had  occupied 
a  comparatively  fertile  expanse  of  country,  partly  arable,  partly  pastoral, 
between  Kadesh  and  Engedi.  They  allowed  the  invaders  to  pene- 
trate far  towards  Palestine,  and  then  turning  upon  them,  pursued 
them  as  far  as  Hormah,  a  city  which  has  been  identified  as  situated 
on  the  southern  verge  of  the  table-land,  about  twenty-four  miles  north 
of  Kadesh.  Its  name  at  the  time  of  the  attack  was  not  Hormah, 
however,  but  Zephath,  "  the  watch-tower ;"  "Hormah,"  "  a  desolated 
place,"  being  the  name  given*  it  after  its  utter  destruction  by  the 
Israelites  in  the  times  succeeding  Joshua  (Judg.  i.  17).  It  was  the 
great  point  from  which  the  roads  across  the  desert,  after  having  been 
all  united,  again  diverge  towards  Gaza  and  Hebron,  and  its  site  is 
still  marked  by  the  ruins  of  a  square  tower  of  hewn  stones,  with  a 
large  heap  of  stones  adjoining,  on  the  top  of  a  hill,  which  rises  a 
thousand  feet  above  the  wady  on  the  edge  of  which  it  stands.' 


SUB-SECTION  IV. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


Clean  and  Unclean  Foods. 

LEVITICUS  xi.  2  :  '  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  These  are  the 
beasts  which  ye  shall  eat  among  all  the  beasts  that  are  on  the  earth.' 

Question. — Is  the  Mosaic  distinction  between  i  clean  '  and  '  un- 
clean '  based  on  the  wholesomeness  or  unwholesomeness  of  the  different 
kinds  of  food  ? 

Answer. — It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  beasts  is  a  natural  one,  which  was  fully 
recognised  in  the  arrangements  made  for  preserving  the  species  in 
the  Ark.  *  Of  every  clean  beast  thou  shalt  take  to  thee  seven  and 
seven,  the  male  and  his  female ;  and  of  the  beasts  that  are  not  clean 
two,  the  male  and  his  female '  (Gen.  vii.  2).  The  terms  appear  to 
mean  *  fit  for  human  food,'  *  unfit  for  human  food ' ;  or  '  domestic  ' 
and  'wild.'  But  clearly  Noah  must  have  had  some  well-known  signs 
by  which  he  recognised  the  distinctions  between  them,  and  those 
signs  may  well  have  been  'parting  the  hoof  and  'chewing  the  cud,' 
which  we  find  in  the  Mosaic  legislation. 

Duns  says  :  '  Clean  beasts  were  originally  such  as  were  offered  in 
sacrifice.  The  rest  were  unclean.  As  the  race  increased,  the  dis- 

22 


338      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

tinctions  were  carried  further.  Men  became  acquainted  with  a 
greater  number  of  animals.  Certain  animals  came  to  be  associated 
with  the  idolatrous  habits  of  certain  tribes.  This  introduced  other 
considerations.  The  habits  of  some  disgusted  the  conventional 
feelings  of  one  tribe,  while  they  were  regarded  with  favour  by  another. 
Circumstances  of  climate  also  were  taken  into  account  in  connection 
with  the  food  best  suited  to  the  inhabitants  of  such  countries.  All 
these  things  influenced  men's  views  of  the  lower  animals,  and  they 
are  acknowledged  in  the  Levitical  arrangements.' 

Bishop  Harold  Browne  says  :  '  The  boundary-line  between  clean 
and  unclean  animals  is  marked  by  nature.  Every  tribe  of  mankind 
would  distinguish  between  the  sheep  and  the  hyaena,  between  the 
dove  and  the  vulture.  Whether  animal  food  was  eaten  before  the 
Deluge  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  flocks  and  herds  were  fed  for  the 
sake  of  their  milk  and  wool,  and  that  of  them  victims  were  offered  in 
sacrifice.  This  alone  would  separate  between  the  clean  and  the 
unclean.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  distinction  even  of  the  names 
"  clean  and  unclean  "  had  been  fully  established  by  custom  long 
before  it  was  recognised  and  ratified  by  the  Law.' 

KeiPs  suggestion  is  altogether  too  vague  :  '  The  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  beasts  is  not  first  made  by  Moses,  but  only 
becomes  fixed  in  the  law  as  corresponding  to  it,  though  existing  long 
before.  Its  beginnings  reach  back  to  the  primitive  time,  and  ground 
themselves  on  an  immediate  conscious  feeling  of  the  human  spirit 
not  yet  clouded  by  any  unnatural  and  ungodly  culture,  under  the 
influence  of  which  feeling  it  sees  in  many  beasts  pictures  of  sin  and 
corruption  which  fill  it  with  aversion  and  abhorrence.' 

S.  Clark,  M.A.,  in  'Speaker's  Commentary,'  gives  some  of  the 
opinions  formed  as  to  what  considerations  directed  the  line  by  which 
clean  animals  were  separated  from  unclean.  'It  has  been  held  (i) 
That  the  food  forbidden  was  such  as  was  commonly  eaten  by  the 
neighbouring  nations,  and  that  the  prohibition  served  as  a  check  to 
keep  the  people  away  from  social  intercourse  with  the  Gentiles.  (So 
Davidson.}  (2)  That  the  flesh  of  certain  animals  from  which  the 
Egyptians  abstained,  because  they  held  it  to  be  sacred,  was  pro- 
nounced clean,  and  treated  as  common  food,  and  that  the  flesh  of 
other  animals,  which  was  associated  with  the  practice  of  magic,  was 
abominated  as  unclean,  in  order  that  the  Israelites  might,  in  their 
daily  life,  bear  a  testimony  against  idolatry  and  superstition.  (3)  That 
it  is  impossible  to  refer  the  line  of  demarcation  to  anything  but  the 
arbitrary  will  of  God.  (4)  But  the  notion  which  has  been  accepted 
Avith  most  favour  is,  that  the  distinction  is  based  wholly  or  mainly  on 


CLEAN  AND  UNCLEAN  FOODS.  339 

symbolical  ground.  By  some  it  has  been  connected  with  the  degra- 
dation of  all  creation  through  the  fall  of  man.  The  apparent  reflec- 
tion of  moral  depravity  in  the  disposition  of  some  animals  has  been 
identified  in  rather  a  loose  way  with  the  unclean  creatures  of  the  Law. 
(5)  Many  have  considered  that  the  prohibition  of  the  unclean 
animals  was  based  mainly  or  entirely  on  sanitary  grounds,  their  flesh 
being  regarded  as  unwholesome.' 

'  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  distinction  which  is  substantially 
recognised  by  different  nations  is  in  agreement  with  the  laws  of  our 
earthly  life.  All  experience  tends  to  show,  that  the  animals  generally 
recognised  as  clean  are  those  which  furnish  the  best  and  most  whole- 
some sorts  of  food.  The  instinct  of  our  nature  points  in  the  same 
direction.  Everyone  dislikes  the  snake  and  the  toad.  No  one  likes 
the  form  and  habits  of  the  pig.  We  shrink  from  the  notion  of  eating 
the  flesh  of  the  hyaena  or  the  vulture.  When  we  are  told  of  our 
fellow-creatures  eating  slugs,  snails,  and  earthworms,  and  accounting 
the  grubs  found  in  rotten  wood  a  delicacy,  the  feeling  of  disgust 
which  arises  within  us  would  not  seem  to  be  the  offspring  of  mere 
conventional  refinement.  This  conclusion  is  not  invalidated  by  the 
fact  that  our  own  repugnant  feelings  have  been  subdued  in  the  case 
of  the  oyster  and  the  pig.  In  regard  to  the  distinction  as  it  is  laid 
down  in  the  Mosaic  Law,  Cyril  appears  to  be  amply  justified  in  saying 
that  it  coincides  with  our  natural  instinct  and  observation.'  'The 
chief  part  of  the  food  of  all  cultivated  nations  has  been  taken  from 
the  same  kind  of  animals.  The  ruminating  quadrupeds,  the  fishes 
with  fins  and  scales,  the  gallinaceous  birds  and  other  birds  which 
feed  on  vegetables,  are  evidently  preferred  by  the  general  choice  of 
mankind.' 

The  law  of  clean  and  unclean  appears  in  its  broader  shape  to  be 
this :  All  creatures  whose  food  is  wholly  vegetable  are  wholesome 
food  for  man.  All  creatures  whose  food  is  wholly  animal  are  un- 
wholesome food  for  man.  Creatures  whose  food  is  partly  vegetable 
and  partly  animal  may  be  wholesome,  or  may  not  be.  And  even 
after  the  physical  influence  of  certain  foods  has  been  duly  considered, 
we  have  to  take  into  account  their  moral  influence,  the  effects  they 
produce  by  exciting  bodily  passion. 


22 2 


340      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
The  Ways  of  the   Partridge. 

JEREMIAH  xvii.  11  :  'As  the  partridge  sitteth  on  eggs,  and  hatcheth  them  not.' 
Rev.  Ver.  renders,  '  As  the  partridge  that  gathereth  young  which  she  hath  not 
brought  forth.'  With  marginal  alternative,  '  Sitteth  on  eggs  which  she  hath  not 
laid.' 

Question. — Is  there  any  foundation  in  fact  for  this  account  of  the 
partridge  ? 

Answer. — According  to  Epiphanius,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Chry- 
sostom,  and  the  Arabian  naturalist  Damir,  there  was  an  old  belief 
that  the  partridge  took  eggs  out  of  other  bird's  nests,  and  that  when 
the  young  were  hatched,  and  were  old  enough,  they  ran  away  from 
their  false  parent.  Such  a  notion  may  have  been  held  by  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  though  it  is  quite  unfounded. 

Geikie  speaks  of  this  as  a  '  popular  fancy  of  Jeremiah's  day.' 
Fausset  notes  that  the  Hebrew  name  for  this  bird  is  korea,  from  a 
root  '  to  call,'  alluding  to  its  cry ;  a  name  still  applied  to  a  bustard 
by  the  Arabs.  Its  nest  is  liable,  being  on  the  ground,  to  be  trodden 
under  foot,  or  robbed  by  carnivorous  animals,  notwithstanding  all 
the  beautiful  manoeuvres  of  the  parent-birds  to  save  their  brood. 
The  translation,  '  sitteth  on  eggs  which  it  has  not  laid,'  alludes  to 
the  ancient  notion  that  she  stole  the  eggs  of  other  birds,  and  hatched 
them  as  her  own,  and  that  the  young  birds  when  grown  left  her  for 
the  true  mother.  It  is  not  needful  to  make  Scripture  allude  to  an 
exploded  notion  as  if  it  were  true. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  thinks  the  notion  of  the  partridge  steal- 
ing the  eggs  of  other  birds  might  easily  have  been  taken  from  the 
great  number  of  eggs  which  the  partridge  lays. 

Dean  Plumptre  says  :  '  Modern  naturalists  have  not  observed  this 
habit,  but  it  is  probable  that  the  belief  originated  in  the  practice  of 
the  cuckoo  laying  its  eggs  in  the  nest  of  the  partridge,  as  in  that  of 
other  birds.' 

Theodoric,  the  King  of  the  Goths,  in  his  letter  quoted  by  Cassio- 
dorus,  refers  to  the  popular  belief  that  young  birds  brought  up  by 
partridges  fly  away  to  their  own  parents. 

Identification  of  the  Unicorn. 

JOB  xxxix.  9  :  '  Will  the  unicorn  be  willing  to  serve  thee,  or  abide  by  thy  crib  ?' 
Rev.  Ver.  reads,  'Will  the  wild  ox  be  content  to  serve  thee  ?' 

Question. — Are  there  any  one-horned  creatures  that  can  possibly 
be  referred  to  by  the  English  term  '  unicorn  '? 

Answer. — The  Revised  Version  seems  to  have  fixed  a  decision 
in  relation  to  this  animal,  whose  name  in  Hebrew  is  reem.  It  was 


IDENTIFICATION  OF  THE  UNICORN.  341 

the  wild  bull,  a  two-horned  creature.  Remains  of  this  animal  have 
recently  been  discovered  in  Palestine.  One  of  the  earliest  Assyrian 
kings,  probably  Tiglath-Pileser  L,  speaks  of  'wild  rimi  destructive, 
which  he  slew  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon,'  plainly  meaning  wild-bulls. 

The  rhinoceros  is  the  only  animal  we  know  that  bears  one  horn, 
but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  though  the  English  translation 
sets  us  upon  seeking  an  animal  with  one  horn,  the  Hebrew  term 
provides  no  such  condition.  Dr.  Good  thinks  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  rhinoceros  is  the  proper  term;  for  this  animal  is  universally 
known  in  Arabia  by  the  name  of  reem  to  the  present  day.  The 
traveller,  Mr.  Browne,  says  that  the  Arabians  call  the  rhinoceros 
Abu-kurn,  '  father  of  the  one  horn.'  This  creature  is  distinguished 
from  all  other  animals  by  the  remarkable  and  offensive  weapon  he 
carries  on  his  nose.  This  is  very  hard  horn,  solid  throughout, 
directed  forward,  and  has  been  seen  four  feet  in  length. 

It  is  certainly  a  very  remarkable  thing  that  the  LXX.,  in  all  the 
passages  of  the  Bible  in  which  the  word  occurs,  with  one  exception, 
should  have  rendered  the  word  monokeros,  that  is,  '  unicorn,'  if  the 
existence  of  some  such  animal  had  not  been  familiar  to  them. 

But  the  identification  with  the  rhinoceros  cannot  be  sustained. 
The  fact  that  the  reem  was  an  animal  with  two  horns  is  settled  by  the 
passage,  Deut.  xxxiii.  1 7,  which  reads  :  *  His  horns  are  like  the  horns 
of  a  reem  '  (see  the  margin,  Authorised  Version).  The  two  horns  of 
the  reem  represent  the  two  tribes,  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  which 
sprang  from  the  one  tribe  Joseph. 

The  only  trace  of  a  one-horned  creature  which  we  have  been  able 
to  hear  of,  besides  the  rhinoceros,  is  a  kind  of  antelope,  but  not  a 
fierce  enough  or  a  strong  enough  creature  to  answer  the  Bible 
descriptions  of  the  reem.  Abbe  Hue,  in  his  *  Travels  in  Tartary  and 
Thibet,'  says  that  the  *  unicorn  really  exists  in  Thibet.  It  is  repre- 
sented in  the  sculptures  and  paintings  of  the  Buddhic  temples. 
Even  in  China  you  often  see  it  in  landscapes  that  ornament  the  inns 
of  the  northern  provinces.  M.  Hue  had  at  one  time  a  small  Mongol 
treatise  on  natural  history  for  the  use  of  children,  in  which  the 
unicorn  formed  one  of  the  pictorial  illustrations.  He  was  not,  how- 
ever, fortunate  enough  to  see  one  during  his  travels.  Mr.  Hodgson, 
an  English  resident  in  Nepaul,  has  succeeded  in  getting  possession  of 
one,  the  skin  and  horn  of  which  were  sent  to  Calcutta.  It  is  a 
species  of  antelope,  reddish  in  colour,  with  white  belly.  Its  distinc- 
tive features  are,  first,  a  black  horn,  long  and  pointed,  with  three 
slight  curvatures,  and  circular  annulations  towards  the  base.  There 
are  two  tufts  of  hair  which  project  from  the  exterior  of  each  nostril, 


342      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

and  much  hair  also  down  round  the  nose  and  mouth,  which  gives  the 
animal's  head  a  heavy  appearance.' 

The  following  extracts  will  show  whence  we  have  derived  the 
heraldic  figure  of  the  unicorn.  Ctesias  (B.C.  400)  says:  'The  Onoi 
Agrioi  are  as  large  as  horses,  and  even  larger,  with  white  bodies,  red 
heads,  blue  eyes,  and  have  each  on  their  foreheads  a  horn  a  cubit  and 
a  half  long,  the  base  of  which  is  white,  the  upper  part  red,  the  middle 
part  black.  Drinking-cups  are  formed  of  these  horns,  and  those  who 
drink  out  of  them  are  said  to  be  subject  neither  to  spasm,  nor 
epilepsy,  nor  to  the  effects  of  poison.  Other  asses  have  no  astra- 
galus ;  but  these  have  one,  as  well  as  a  gall-bladder.  The  astragalus 
I  have  seen  myself ;  it  is  beautifully  formed,  in  shape  like  that  of  an 
ox,  and  very  heavy  and  red  throughout.  The  animal  is  so  swift  that  no 
horse  can  overtake  it,  and  so  strong  and  fierce  that  it  is  with  difficulty 
destroyed  by  arrows  and  javelins.  It  begins  its  running  slowly,  but 
gradually  increases  its  speed.  It  shows  great  attachment  to  its' 
young,  which  it  defends  against  its  pursuers,  fighting  with  horn,  teeth, 
and  heels.  The  flesh  is  so  bitter  that  it  is  not  eaten  ;  but  men  set  a 
high  value  on  the  horns  and  astragali.' 

Pliny  (A.D.  70)  says  :  '  The  Orssean  Indians  hunt  a  very  fierce 
animal,  called  the  monoceros,  which  has  the  body  of  a  horse,  the  head 
of  a  stag,  the  feet  of  an  elephant,  and  the  tail  of  a  wild  boar ;  it 
utters  a  deep  lowing  noise,  and  has  a  single  horn,  two  cubits  long, 
projecting  from  the  middle  of  its  forehead.  They  say  this  animal 
cannot  be  taken  alive.' 

sElian  (A.D.  130)  gives  a  further  account  of  this  monoceros.  '  It  is 
as  big  as  a  full-grown  horse,  with  a  mane  and  yellow  woolly  hair,  of 
greatest  swiftness,  with  feet  like  the  elephant,  and  the  tail  of  a  wild 
boar.  It  has  a  black  horn  growing  between  the  eyebrows,  which  is 
not  smooth,  but  with  natural  twistings,  and  is  very  sharp  at  the  point. 
It  utters  loud,  harsh  sounds.  It  lives  peaceably  with  other  animals, 
but  quarrels  with  those  of  its  own  kind,  the  males  even  destroying 
the  females,  except  at  breeding-time,  at  which  season  the  animals  are 
gregarious ;  but  at  other  times  they  live  in  solitude  in  wild  regions.' 

Making  due  allowance  for  inexactnesses  and  extravagances  of 
description,  the  above  may  be  referred  to  the  rhinoceros,  when  that 
was  a  little  known  animal. 


CONEY  AND  HARE  STATED  TO  CHEW  THE  CUD.  343 


The  Coney  and  Hare  stated  to  Chew  the  Cud. 

LEVITICUS  xi.  5,  6  :  '  And  the  coney,  because  he  cheweth  the  cud  but  parteth 
not  the  hoof,  he  is  unclean  unto  you^  And  the  hare,  because  she  cheweth  the 
cud  but  parteth  not  the  hoof,  she  is  unclean  unto  you.' 

Difficulty.  —  The  description  given  of  these  animals  is  not  correct. 

Explanation. — It  is  the  description  which  would  be  given  by  a 
mere  observer.  Whenever  the  hare  is  at  rest  on  its  form,  the  restless 
motion  of  its  jaws  betrays  the  constant  working  of  its  teeth,  and  the 
same  habit  has  been  noticed  in  the  coney.  The  similarity  between 
this  movement  and  that  of  the  cow's  mouth  when  chewing  the  cud 
could  not  fail  to  strike  the  unscientific  observer,  who  would  naturally 
give  the  same  explanation  for  each  case.  It  is  rather  a  remarkable 
thing  that  the  Arabs  of  the  present  day  class  the  hare  among  animals 
lawful  to  be  eaten,  on  the  express  ground  that  it  does  chew  the  cud. 

This  presents  a  striking  illustration  of  the  unscientific  character  of 
the  Scriptures.  They  record  popular  fallacies  in  matters  of  science. 
Moses  repeats  the  common  opinion  of  his  day  in  all  such  things  as 
natural  history. 

Neither  the  hare  nor  the  coney  does,  in  fact,  chew  the  cud.  Neither 
creature  is  provided  with  the  necessary  internal  apparatus.  For  them 
both  it  is  a  natural  impossibility.  They  were  thought  to  do  it  in 
Moses'  day.  It  is  thought  by  many  persons  still  that  they  do  it.  It 
is  only  fair  and  straightforward  to  recognise  a  scientific  error  in  this 
classification  of  the  hare  and  coney  among  ruminants. 

Tristram  tries  to  get  over  the  difficulty  by  saying  that  the  Hebrew 
word  does  not  imply  'having  a  ruminant  stomach,  'but  simply  re-chew, 
or  masticate.  But  there  is  no  point  in  the  passage  if  in  these  two 
cases  the  term  is  to  be  taken  in  some  sense  that  will  not  apply  to  the 
cow,  or  other  ruminant  creatures.  J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  the  same 
line  as  Tristram.  '  Although  there  may  have  been  no  genuine  rumi- 
nation in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  yet  the  act  of  the  hare  munch- 
ing its  food  went  popularly  by  the  name  of  rumination,  or  chewing 
again. ' 

How  curiously  persistent  the  unscientific  notion  has  proved  is 
shown  in  the  fact  that  Linnceus  classed  the  hare  with  ruminating 
animals,  speaking  from  the  popular  opinion  with  regard  to  it.  And 
the  poet  Cowper — who  kept  hares,  and  observed  them  diligently— 
says  that  'one  of  his  hares  chewed  the  cud  all  day  till  evening.' 
And  Goldsmith  tells  us  that  '  the  rhinoceros,  trie  horse,  the  rabbit,  the 
marmot,  and  the  squirrel,  all  chew  the  cud  by  intervals,'  which  is 
utterly  untrue. 


344      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  scientific  fact  is  thus  stated  by  Houghton  :  '  The  simple  fact 
is  that  all  ruminants  are  bisulcate — i.e.,  divide  the  hoof  into  two  parts 
— and  all  bisulcates  are  ruminant.  The  hornless  ruminants  belong- 
ing to  the  genera  Camelus  and  Llama  differ  somewhat  from  other 
ruminants  in  the  structure  of  the  foot.  The  toes  of  the  camel  are 
conjoined  nearly  to  the  apex,  and  the  feet  are  callous  beneath  ;  in  the 
llama  the  sole  is  cloven  as  far  as  the  middle  of  the  fore  part.  Hence, 
in  point  of  fact,  all  ruminants  are  bisulcate,  but  not  to  an  equal 
extent.' 

The   Ceremonial   Uncleanness   of  Swine. 

LEVITICUS  xi.  7  :  '  And  the  swine,  though  he  divide  the  hoof,  and  be  cloven- 
footed,  yet  he  cheweth  not  the  cud  ;  he  is  unclean  unto  you.' 

Difficulty. — Surely  there  must  be  some  deeper  reason  for  forbidding 
the  eating  of  swine's  flesh  than  appears  in  the  fact  that  swine  do  not 
chew  the  cud. 

Explanation. — There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  association 
of  this  animal  with  idolatrous  worship  was  the  real  reason  for  its  pro- 
hibition. But  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  food  of  the  pig  is  not 
strictly  confined  to  vegetable  substances.  It  is  to  a  considerable 
extent  a  flesh-eater,  and  therefore  is  unwholesome  food. 

Kalisch  gives  some  of  the  associations  of  swine  with  idolatrous 
systems  :  '  The  abhorrence  of  the  Israelites  to  pork  struck  the  heathen 
as  the  most  conspicuous  characteristic  of  their  religion,  and  it  was 
believed  they  would  eat  human  flesh  with  no  greater  repugnance 
than  pork.  This  peculiar  aversion  to  the  pig  must  have  had  a 
peculiar  reason ;  it  must  in  some  way  have  been  connected  with  the 
very  essence  of  the  Hebrew  faith  itself.  In  searching  for  the  reason, 
we  obtain  welcome  aid  from  statements  of  classical  writers.  It 
cannot  be  doubted  that  the  swine,  on  account  of  its  prolificness,  was 
extensively  regarded  as  an  emblem  of  the  fertility  of  Nature  and  of 
her  productive  powers ;  it  received,  therefore,  a  cosmic  significance ; 
it  represented  the  main  principle  of  all  heathen  religions — the  eternal 
working  of  the  elements  and  of  the  innate  forces  of  matter,  a  principle 
directly  opposed  to  that  of  Hebraism,  which  rigorously  insists  upon 
one  personal  Deity  creating,  ruling,  and  preserving  the  universe  and 
all  mankind.  Hence  many  pagan  nations  sacrificed  the  swine  to 
those  gods  to  whom  they  attributed  the  fertility  of  the  soil  and  the 
fruitfulness  of  cattle.  Though  the  Egyptians  commonly  avoided  the 
pig  as  particularly  unclean,  they  offered  and  consumed  one  once 
every  year,  at  the  feast  of  the  full  moon,  in  honour  of  Isis  and  Osiris, 
the  fructifying  powers  of  Nature,  and  this  was  done  so  scrupulously 


THE  CEREMONIAL  UNCLEANNESS  OF  SWINE.  345 

that  the  poor,  who  could  not  afford  a  pig,  were  ordered  to  shape  one 
of  dough,  and  to  hallow  and  eat  this  image.  The  pig  was  indeed 
believed  to  have  suggested  the  first  idea  of  ploughing  and  the  plough- 
share by  breaking  up  the  earth  with  its  protruding  snout.  In  Egypt 
it  was  no  unimportant  agent  in  securing  agricultural  success ;  for  in 
some  parts  of  the  country,  especially  in  the  Delta,  as  soon  as  the 
subsiding  Nile  had  irrigated  the  fields,  the  husbandmen  turned  swine 
into  their  land  to  press  the  seed  into  the  ground,  thus  protecting  the 
grain  from  the  birds ;  and  at  harvest-time  pigs  were  employed  to 
tread  out  the  corn.  The  famous  Zodiac  of  Denderah  represents, 
under  the  sign  of  the  fishes,  a  man  carrying  a  small  pig,  which  points 
to  the  Egyptian  swine-offering  in  reference  to  the  progress  of  the 
seasons.  A  pig  formed  the  usual  sacrifice  for  Demeter.  Thus  the 
Athenians  generally  offered  one  in  their  mysteries,  which  mainly 
related  to  the  secret  activity  of  Nature.  On  Athenian  Eleusinian 
coins  Ceres  is  figured  together  with  a  swine.  The  Boeotians,  at  an 
annual  festival  celebrated  in  their  sacred  grove  near  Potniae  in  honour 
of  Demeter  and  Kora  (Proserpine),  let  down  into  subterranean 
chambers  pigs,  which  were  supposed  to  reappear  in  the  following 
summer  at  Dodona,  near  the  old  and  sacred  oracle.  The  early 
Romans  honoured  Ceres  or  Tellus,  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
harvest,  by  the  sacrifice  of  a  pig,  generally  a  fat  and  pregnant  sow, 
which,  indeed,  was  considered  to  have  been  the  first  offering 
slaughtered  to  Ceres,  if  not  the  first  of  all  sacrifices,  "  because  the 
swine  is  useful  to  men  mainly  by  its  flesh,"  that  is,  by  its  death. 
Therefore  pigs,  so  far  from  being  detested,  were  often  declared  holy. 
Thus  the  Syrians  in  Hierapolis,  who  neither  ate  nor  offered  swine, 
did  so,  according  to  some  ancient  authorities,  "not  because  they 
believed  pigs  to  be  a  pollution,  but  sacred  animals."  The  Cretans 
held  the  pig  holy,  not  on  account  of  the  mythical  reason  put  forth  by 
some  foreign  writers  that  a  sow  allowed  the  infant  Jupiter  to  suck 
her  teats,  and  by  her  grunting  prevented  the  child's  cries  from  being 
heard,  but  because  it  was  the  emblem  of  fruitfulness,  whence  the 
Praisians,  a  tribe  of  Crete,  regularly  sacrificed  a  sow  before  marriage. 
Callimachus  called  Venus  Castnietis  the  wisest  of  her  sisters,  because 
she  was  the  first  among  them  who  accepted  the  sacrifice  of  swine. 
.  .  .  Hence,  again,  as  Ceres,  or  agriculture,  was  looked  upon  as  the 
originator  of  all  personal  and  civil  ties,  of  matrimonial  law,  of  special 
and  political  order,  the  swine  was  employed  for  various  solemn  and 
imposing  rituals  connected  with  domestic  and  public  life.  The 
Athenians,  on  entering  the  national  assembly,  used  certain  parts  of 
the  pig  for  purification.  When  they  desired  to  expiate  a  house,  a 


346      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

temple,  or  a  town,  the  priests  carried  young  pigs  round  the  edifice 
or  the  city ;  and  they  sprinkled  with  pig's  blood  the  benches  used 
at  popular  assemblies.  .  .  .  Moreover,  as  pork  was,  in  its  nature 
and  taste,  considered  to  resemble  human  flesh,  the  offering  of  a 
swine  was,  on  peculiar  emergencies,  substituted  for  a  human 
sacrifice.' 

'Can  it  then  be  surprising  that  the  Jewish  doctors  and  sages, 
anxious  to  wean  the  people  from  the  worship  of  Nature  and  her 
powers,  and  to  imbue  them  with  reverence  for  the  one  eternal 
Creator,  the  bestower  of  all  earthly  blessings,  looked  with  implacable 
detestation  upon  the  animal  which  typified  a  main  feature  of 
paganism,  and  declared  the  eating  of  pork  as  nothing  less  than  a 
revolt  against  the  foundations  of  Judaism — nay,  that  the  early 
teachers  among  the  Christians  shared  the  same  repugnance,  and 
relaxed  in  it  only  after  long  struggles  ?  The  very  persecution  and 
ridicule  which  the  Jews  constantly  suffered  on  that  account  helped 
to  intensify  their  abhorrence,  especially  as  the  eating  of  pork  was  in 
later  times  also  enforced  and  regarded  as  the  first  and  most  con- 
spicuous act  of  the  Jewish  renegade,  as  among  Mohammedans  it  is 
still  held  to  be  equivalent  to  abjuring  the  Islam.' 

Kalisch  summarizes  the  things  that  made  the  pig  hateful  to  the 
Jews  :  '  Loathsome  uncleanness,  unwholesomeness,  carnivorous 
ferocity,  and  dangerous  seduction  to  paganism.' 

Swine  are  still  held  in  abomination  by  Moslems,  Jews,  Druses,  and 
most  Orientals.  Even  some  Christians  refuse  swine's  flesh. 

The  Eagle's  Ways  with  her  Young. 

DEUTERONOMY  xxxii.  1 1  (Rev.  Ver. )  :  'As  an  eagle  that  stirreth  up  her  nest,  that 
fluttereth  over  her  young,  He  spread  abroad  His  wings,  He  took  them,  He  bare 
them  on  His  pinions.' 

Question. — Is  this  poetical  figure  based  on  any  such  observations 
as  can  noiv  be  verified? 

Answer. — Thomson  thinks  it  maybe  a  precise  description.  'The 
eagle  is  strong  enough  to  do  it,  but  I  am  not  aware  that  such  a  thing 
has  ever  been  witnessed.'  He  reports  having  himself  seen  'the  old 
eagle  fly  round  and  round  the  nest,  and  back  and  forth  past  it,  while 
the  young  ones  fluttered  and  shivered  on  the  edge,  as  if  eager  but 
afraid  to  launch  forth  from  the  giddy  precipice.  And  no  wonder, 
for  the  nest  "  is  on  high,"  and  a  fall  from  thence  would  end  their 
flight  for  ever.' 

A  recent  traveller,  writing  in  view  of  a  deep  chasm  in  the  range 
of  Lebanon,  says  :  '  It  is  not  necessary  to  press  every  poetical  figure 


THE  EAGLE'S  WAYS  WITH  HER   YOUNG.      347 

into  strict  prosaic  accuracy.  The  notion,  however,  appears  to  have 
been  prevalent  among  the  ancients  that  the  eagle  did  actually  take 
up  her  yet  timid  young,  and  carry  them  forth  to  teach  them  how,  and 
embolden  them  to  try  their  own  pinions.' 

Moses  could  not  but  be  observant  of  the  wild  birds  during  his 
long  sojourn  in  Arabia,  and  this  is  quite  a  matter  of  careful  observa- 
tion, not  one  in  which  science  has  any  special  concern.  A  person 
accustomed  to  observe  accurately  the  habits  of  animals  reports 
having  seen-  an  eagle  in  one  of  the  deep  gorges  of  the  Himalayas  thus 
teaching  its  young  to  fly.  While  with  his  glass  he  watched  several 
young  ones  on  a  ledge  of  rock  at  a  great  height,  the  parent  bird  swept 
gently  past  the  young,  one  of  which  ventured  to  follow,  but  seemed 
as  if  unequal  to  the  flight.  As  it  gently  sunk  down  with  extended 
wings,  one  of  the  parent  birds  glided  underneath  it,  and  bore  it  aloft 
again. 

Sir  Humphrey  Davy  writes  :  '  I  once  saw  a  very  interesting  sight 
above  one  of  the  crags  of  Ben  Nevis,  as  I  was  going  in  the  pursuit  of 
black  game.  Two  parent  eagles  were  teaching  their  offspring,  two 
young  birds,  the  manoeuvres  of  flight.  They  began  by  rising  from 
the  top  of  a  mountain  in  the  eye  of  the  sun.  It  was  about  mid-day, 
and  bright  for  this  climate.  They  at  first  made  small  circles,  and  the 
young  birds  imitated  them.  They  paused  on  their  wings,  waiting  till 
they  had  made  their  first  flight,  and  then  took  a  second  and  larger 
gyration,  always  rising  towards  the  sun,  and  enlarging  their  circles  of 
flight,  so  as  to  make  a  gradually  extending  spiral.  The  young  ones 
still  slowly  followed,  apparently  flying  better  as  they  mounted ;  and 
they  continued  this  sublime  kind  of  exercise,  always  rising,  till  they 
became  mere  points  in  the  air,  and  the  young  ones  were  lost,  and 
afterwards  their  parents,  to  our  aching  sight.' 

Ants  Storing  their  Food. 

PROVERBS  vi.  6-8  (Rev.  Ver.} :  '  Go  to  the  ant,  thou  sluggard ;  consider  her 
ways,  and  be  wise  ;  which  having  no  chief,  overseer,  or  ruler,  provideth  her  meat 
in  the  summer,  and  gathereth  her  food  in  the  harvest.' 

Difficulty. — Careful  observation  of  the  ants  of  Palestiiie  does  not 
confirm  the  fact  which  is  here  used  as  illustration. 

Explanation. — It  must  be  admitted  that  no  answer  is  given  to 
this  objection  if  we  can  only  show  that  there  are  some  kinds  of  ants, 
in  some  parts  of  the  world,  which  do  store  up  their  food.  It  is 
necessary  to  show  that  such  ants  as  came  within  the  sphere  of  the 
observations  of  this  writer  did  so.  What  can  be  known  concerning 
the  ants  of  Palestine  ? 


348     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Dr.  C.  Geikie,  in  his  latest  work,  *  Holy  Land  and  Bible,'  writes 
with  great  confidence  on  this  subject.  '  Modern  science  has  felt  a 
difficulty  in  these  words,  since  the  ant  does  not  live  on  grain,  but  on 
flesh,  insects,  and  the  sweet  sap  or  other  exudations  of  trees,  which  it 
could  not  store  up  for  winter  use,  and  since  it  sleeps  during  winter, 
in  all  but  very  hot  climates.  The  truth  is,  we  must  not  look  in 
Scripture  for  science,  which  was  unknown  in  early  ages,  for  it  is  not 
the  purpose  of  Revelation  to  teach  it,  and  the  sacred  writers,  in  this 
as  in  other  matters  of  a  similar  kind,  were  left  to  write  according  to 
the  popular  belief  of  their  day.  We  find  the  same  idea  in  another 
passage  of  Proverbs  (ch.  xxx.  24,  25) :  "There  be  four  things  which 
are  little  upon  the  earth,  but  they  are  exceeding  wise  :  the  ants  are  a 
people  not  strong,  yet  they  prepare  their  meat  in  the  summer."  It 
was  universally  believed  in  antiquity  that  ants  did  so.  Thomson  and 
Neil  still  cling  to  the  idea.  Ants  do,  indeed,  fill  their  nest  with  many 
things,  but  it  is  to  pad  them  warmly,  and  keep  themselves  from  the 
damp  earth ;  and  hence,  though  they  are  undoubtedly  assiduous  in 
harvest-time  in  carrying  off  grains  of  corn,  chaff,  grass,  seeds,  and 
vegetable  husks  of  all  kinds,  they  do  so  to  make  their  underground 
rooms  comfortable,  not  to  lay  up  food  for  a  season  during  which,  in 
many  parts,  they  eat  nothing.  Anyone  may  see  the  proof  of  this  for 
himself  by  opening  an  ant's  nest.  He  will  find  everything  to  make  it 
warm,  but  the  supposed  "  stores  "  are  left  quite  untouched. 

*  It  is  not  certain,  indeed,  that  in  Palestine  ants  hibernate,  for  they 
may  be  seen — at  least  in  the  warm  district  round  the  Dead  Sea — 
busy  on  the  tamarisk-trunks,  seeking  their  food,  even  in  January. 
The  mistake  is  similar  to  that  which  prevails  very  generally,  even  in 
our  own  day,  as  to  ants'  eggs,  which  is  the  name  popularly  given, 
both  in  England  and  Germany,  to  the  pupce,  or  ants  in  process  of 
transformation  into  the  perfect  insect.  They  then  closely  resemble 
grains  of  corn,  and  are  carried  out  daily  by  their  nurses  to  enjoy  the 
heat  of  the  sun,  and  taken  in  again  before  evening.  Who  that  has 
broken  into  an  ant's  nest,  by  accident  or  intentionally,  has  not  seen 
the  workers  rushing  off  with  these  white,  egg-like  bodies,  in  trembling 
haste,  to  bear  them  to  a  place  of  security  ?  But  if  we  nowadays 
make  a  popular  mistake  in  thinking  these  to  be  eggs,  how  much  more 
natural  was  it  that  erroneous  ideas,  on  another  point  of  ant-life,  should 
obtain  three  thousand  years  ago !  Mr.  Neil's  experience,  indeed, 
shows  how  easily  a  mistake  might  arise.  While  encamped,  about  the 
middle  of  March,  near  Tiberias,  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  he  noticed  a 
line  of  large,  black  ants  marching  towards  their  nest,  each  laden  with 
a  grain  of  barley,  larger  and  longer  than  itself,  so  that  they  looked 


ANTS  STORING  THEIR  FOOD.  349 

like  a  moving  multitude  of  barleycorns.  This  line,  he  found,  ex- 
tended to  a  spot  where  some  of  the  corn  for  his  beasts  had  been 
spilt  by  the  mule-drivers,  or  had  fallen  from  the  nose-bags,  and  was 
now  being  appropriated  by  the  ants.  That  they  should  carry  it  off 
seemed  at  once  to  justify  the  supposition  that  they  were  doing  so  to 
lay  up  food  for  the  winter,  and  yet,  as  I  have  said,  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  ants  do  not  eat  dried  barley,  or  any  other  dry 
grain.' 

Houghton  says :  '  That  the  ant  stores  up  grains  of  corn  is  quite 
true,  but  the  corn  is  not  eaten  by  the  insects,  which  are  chiefly 
carnivorous  in  their  habits,  though  they  are  also  fond  of  saccharine 
matters.  Ants  take  a  pleasure  in  running  away  with  various  small 
objects,  as  beans,  seeds,  etc.,  which  they  convey  to  their  nests,  and 
use  as  a  lining  to  keep  out  the  damp.' 

The  late  Colonel  Sykes  tells  of  a  species  of  Indian  ant,  the  Atta 
providens,  so  called  from  his  having  found  a  large  store  of  grass-seeds 
in  its  nest ;  he  says  that  this  insect  carries  seeds  underground,  and 
brings  them  again  to  the  surface,  after  they  have  got  wet  during  the 
monsoons,  apparently  to  dry,  thus  corroborating  what  the  ancients 
have  written  on  this  particular  point. 

Tristram's  note  will  be  regarded  as  altogether  satisfactory.  He 
says :  '  The  ancients  unanimously  believed  that  the  ant  stored  up 
food  for  winter  consumption  ;  and  who  that  has  watched  the  in- 
cessant activity  of  these  little  creatures,  issuing  in  long  files  from  their 
subterranean  labyrinths  by  a  broad,  beaten  track,  and  gradually 
dispersing  in  all  directions  by  pathways  that  become  narrower  and 
fainter  as  they  are  sub-divided  and  diverge,  while  a  busy  throng  is 
uninterruptedly  conveying  back  by  the  same  paths  every  movable 
object  which  they  are  able  to  drag  with  their  powerful  forceps,  would 
not  at  once  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  ?  The  language  of  the 
Wise  Man  is  in  accordance  with  the  universal  belief;  and  the  lessons 
of  wisdom  and  industry  are  none  the  less  forcible  because  the  more 
accurate  observation  has  shown  that,  in  most  countries  at  least,  the 
stores  are  not  husbanded  for  food,  but  for  furnishing  their  homes. 
The  language  of  the  inspired  writer  must  be  read  simply  as  we  read 
the  expressions  of  the  sun  rising  and  setting,  explained  by  the  dis- 
coveries of  more  recent  astronomy.  At  the  same  time,  it  has  not  yet 
been  ascertained  that,  in  the  warmer  climates  of  the  Holy  Land,  the 
ant  is  dormant  throughout  the  winter.  Among  the  tamarisks  of  the 
Dead  Sea  it  may  be  seen  in  January  actively  engaged  in  collecting  the 
aphides  and  saccharine  exudations,  in  long  files,  passing  and  repassing 
up  and  down  the  trunk.' 


350      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Bees  in  a  Lion's  Carcase. 

JUDGES  xiv.  8  :  '  And  after  a  time  he  returned  to  take  her,  and  he  turned  aside 
to  see  the  carcase  of  the  lion  ;  and  behold,  there  was  a  swarm  of  bees  and  honey 
m  the  carcase  of  the  lion.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  hard  to  believe  that  bees  would  settle  inside  the 
carcase  of  an  animal. 

Explanation. — Two  statements  have  been  made,  either  of 
which  suffices  to  remove  this  difficulty.  Rosenmiiller  says  :  *  If  one 
were  to  understand  this  of  a  putrid  and  offensive  carcase,  the  narra- 
tive would  lose  all  probability,  for  it  is  well  known  that  bees  will 
not  approach  the  dead  body  of  either  man  or  animal.  But  in  the 
desert  of  Arabia  the  heat  of  the  summer  season  often  so  dries  up  the 
moisture  of  the  bodies  of  dead  men  and  camels  within  twenty-four 
hours,  that  they  remain  a  long  time  like  mummies,  unaltered  and 
without  offensive  smell.' 

The  other  suggestion,  however,  seems  more  reasonable.  The 
bodies  of  dead  animals  in  the  East  are  immediately  attacked  by 
carrion  bird  and  beast,  who  swiftly  remove  every  soft  portion,  and 
leave  the  mere  bony  skeleton  to  whiten  in  the  sun.  The  skeleton 
would  be  a  not  unlikely  place  for  a  bee-hive ;  and  it  was  in  the  dried 
skeleton  of  the  lion  that  Samson  found  the  bees. 

Herodotus  gives  a  story  which  is  strikingly  illustrative  of  this  one. 
He  tells  of  a  certain  Onesilas,  who  had  been  captured  by  the 
Amathusians,  and  had  been  beheaded,  that  his  head,  after  having 
been  suspended  over  the  gates,  had  become  occupied  by  a  swarm  of 
bees. 

In  Palestine  bees  are  abundant ;  the  dry  recesses  of  the  limestone 
rocks  everywhere  afford  shelter  and  protection  for  the  combs. 

Rosenmiiller  quotes  the  authority  of  the  physician  Aldrovand  for 
the  story  that  swarms  of  bees  built  their  combs  between  the  skeletons 
of  two  sisters  who  were  buried  in  the  church  of  Santa  Croce,  at 
Verona,  in  1566. 

Hugh  Miller,  in  '  Schools  and  Schoolmasters,'  tells  the  following 
story  :  '  A  party  of  boys  had  stormed  a  humble-bee's  nest  on  the  side 
of  the  old  chapel-brae,  and  digging  inwards  along  the  narrow  winding 
earth-passage,  they  at  length  came  to  a  grinning  human  skull,  and 
saw  the  bees  issuing  thick  from  out  a  round  hole  at  its  base.  .  .  . 
The  wise  little  workers  had  actually  formed  their  nest  within  the 
hollow  of  the  head,  once  occupied  by  the  busy  brain  ;  and  their 
spoilers,  more  scrupulous  than  Samson  of  old,  who  seems  to  have 


THE  BEAR  OF  PALESTINE.  351 

enjoyed  the  meat  brought  out  of  the  eater,  and  the  sweetness 
extracted  from  the  strong,  left  in  very  great  consternation  their  honey 
all  to  themselves.' 

The  Bear  of  Palestine. 

I  SAMUEL  xvii.  37  :  '  David  said  moreover,  The  Lord  that  delivered  me  out 
of  the  paw  of  the  lion,  and  out  of  the  paw  of  the  bear,  He  will  deliver  me 
out  of  the  hand  of  this  Philistine.' 

Question. — Is  there  any  evidence  that  the  bear  of  Palestine  was  a 
special  foe  of  the  shepherds  ? 

Answer. — It  appears  to  have  been  dreaded  at  particular  times  of 
the  year.  Van  Lennep  gives  the  fullest  account  of  the  habits  of  this 
creature.  *  The  bear  is  powerful,  keen-scented,  sagacious,  and 
cunning.  He  is  generally  harmless,  and  greatly  terrifies  people  by 
the  cool,  unconcerned  manner  in  which  he  makes  his  nightly  calls  to 
the  choicest  fruit-trees,  even  when  close  to  an  inhabited  dwelling. 
The  depredations  of  the  bear  are  very  extensive,  for  he  not  only 
consumes  a  vast  quantity  of  fruit,  but  breaks  many  branches  of  the 
trees  on  which  he  climbs,  and  roughly  handles  other  people's 
property. 

'As  long  as  the  fruit  season  lasts,  the  bear  is  well-behaved  and 
harmless.  He  hides  on  the  lofty  mountains  during  the  day,  and 
comes  down  at  night  to  the  gardens,  or  orchards  and  vineyards,  and 
skilfully  avoids  the  snares  laid  for  him.  Honey  is  his  favourite  food, 
and  he  will  often  run  considerable  risks  in  order  to  gratify  his  greedi- 
ness for  it.  When  winter  comes,  and  the  snow  covers  the  lofty 
mountains  which  he  inhabits,  the  bear  withdraws  to  a  cave,  and 
awaits  the  return  of  spring  in  a  dormant  state.  It  is  during  the 
interval  beUveen  the  cessation  of  autumnal  fruits  and  crops,  and  his 
retirement  to  winter  quarters,  that  he  manifests  his  carnivorous  pro- 
pensities, and  becomes  ferocious  and  aggressive  even  to  man.  He 
prowls  about  mountain  villages,  and  fiercely  attacks  the  flocks  of 
goats  and  sheep,  even  in  broad  daylight.  We  remember  visiting  a 
village  on  the  Anti-taurus,  which  the  day  before  had  suffered  the 
depredations  of  a  bear  of  monstrous  size.  He  had  surprised  a  flock 
of  goats,  and  when  attacked  by  the  shepherds  and  their  dogs  with  a 
hue  and  cry  which  brought  out  every  villager  from  his  hut,  he  had 
slowly  retired,  flinging  stones  at  his  pursuers  with  such  accurate  aim 
and  force  that  severe  wounds  were  inflicted  on  them.  Later  in  the 
day  he  had  gone  boldly  into  the  fold  on  the  edge  of  the  village,  and 
carried  off  a  goat,  which  he  dragged  to  a  hillock  near  by,  and  de- 
liberately devoured,  in  plain  sight  of  the  inhabitants,  who,  not  pos- 


352      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

sessing  a  single  gun,  dared  not  disturb  the  audacious  brute.  He  was 
pointed  out  to  us  ranging  over  the  hills,  already  covered  with  a  slight 
fall  of  snow ;  and,  watching  with  our  spy-glass,  we  saw  him  dig  up 
the  remains  of  another  goat  which  he  had  partly  devoured  and  buried 
there.  We  have  repeatedly  known  the  bear  at  this  season  to  fall 
upon  and  devour  children  who  had  strayed  out  but  a  short  distance 
from  the  mountain  villages  ;  and  we  particularly  remember  a  Turkish 
girl  about  thirteen  years  of  age,  who  thus  lost  her  life  on  the  Ak-dagh, 
near  Amasia. 

'  Some  have  supposed  that  the  bear  has  not  the  thirst  for  blood 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  wolf  or  panther.  He  sometimes,  how- 
ever, seems  quite  as  ferocious,  and  has  been  repeatedly  known  to  kill 
apparently  for  the  pleasure  of  it.  In  a  certain  mountain  village  the 
sheep  were  shut  up  in  one  of  those  stables  which  are  partly  dug  out 
of  the  mountain  side,  and  have  a  room  in  front  built  of  rough  stones, 
with  a  flat  roof  overhead,  and  a  broad  chimney.  The  door  was  made 
fast  at  evening,  and  the  dogs,  being  released  from  duty,  had  sought 
refuge  from  the  cold  in  their  master's  house.  A  bear  came,  however, 
at  dead  of  night,  and,  descending  by  the  chimney,  strangled  every  one 
of  the  sheep.  After  gorging  himself  with  their  blood  he  piled  their 
bodies  in  the  wide  fireplace,  and  climbing  thereon,  escaped  un- 
perceived  !' 

Meen  gives  a  much  less  favourable  account  of  this  creature  :  *  Con- 
cealing himself  in  some  thicket,  the  bear  watches  his  victim,  then 
steals  upon  him  in  silence ;  escape,  either  for  man  or  beast,  being 
all  but  impossible.  Although  many  animals  surpass  it  in  the  rapidity 
of  their  movements,  few  men  are  swift  enough  to  elude  him.  The 
widest  river,  the  most  inaccessible  rock,  or  the  loftiest  tree,  offers  no 
protection.  His  whole  aspect  is  such  as  to  inspire  terror.  Morose, 
sullen,  and  capricious,  we  fail  to  discover  any  redeeming  quality 
except  in  its  attachment  to  its  young,  which  cannot  be  surpassed. 
The  Syrian  bear  not  only  preys  on  animals,  but  also  devastates  the 
fields.  The  lion  and  other  beasts  spring  on  their  prey  with  a  single 
bound,  but  the  bear  has  a  mode  of  attack  peculiar  to  itself.  Stealing 
up  to  his  victim  in  silence,  he  rises  upon  his  hind  legs,  and  throwing 
his  horrid  arms  around,  crushes  him  to  death.  The  female  is  more 
formidable  than  the  male,  and  on  the  loss  of  her  young  she  is  almost 
driven  to  madness.' 

It  may  be  interesting  to  add,  that  the  Hebrew  name  for  the  bear 
is  dob,  being  identical  with  the  modern  Arabic  name  dub,  a '  he-bear ;' 
dubbe,  a  '  she -bear.'  Some  writers  derive  the  word  from  a  Hebrew 
root,  dabdb,  l  to  walk  slowly  ;'  but  others,  with  more  probability,  refer 


A  PLAGUE  OF  MICE.  353 

it  to  an  Arabic  root,  meaning  'to  be  hairy;'  dob  being  thus  the 
*  shaggy  animal.'  The  name  of  the  bear  occurs  on  the  Assyrian 
monuments ;  the  word  phonetically  is  read  dabu,  evidently  the  Hebrew 
dob. 

Layard  says  that  at  the  present  day  bears  appear  not  to  be  un- 
common in  the  neighbourhood  of  Tiyari,  a  district  north  of  Assyria, 
where  they  are  very  mischievous,  robbing  the  trees  of  their  fruit,  and 
taking  the  fruit  when  laid  out  to  dry.  *  These  bears  are  probably  the 
descendants  of  those  hunted  by  the  Assyrian  monarchs  more  than 
2,500  years  ago.' 


A  Plague  of  Mice. 

I  SAMUEL  vi.  5  :  '  Wherefore  ye  shall  make  images  of  your  tumours,  and  images 
of  your  mice  that  mar  the  land  ;  and  ye  shall  give  glory  unto  the  God  of  Israel  : 
peradventure  he  will  lighten  his  hand  from  off  you,  and  from  off  your  gods,  and 
from  off  your  land.' 

Difficulty. — Mice  are  such  small  creatures,  and  so  well  within  the 
control  of  man,  that  it  is  strange  to  find  them  becoming  a  serious 
national  plague. 

Explanation. — The  reference  here  is  to  the  field-mouse,  and 
not  the  household  mouse  with  which  we  are  familiar.  This  class  of 
animals  multiplies  with  amazing  rapidity.  The  field-mouse  has  its 
natural  enemies,  which  keep  its  numbers  in  check.  If  by  any  cir- 
cumstances these  natural  enemies  are  removed  from  a  district,  the 
breeding  proceeds  with  an  amazing  rapidity,  and  the  creatures 
become  a  nuisance,  and  even  a  plague.  Illustration  may  be  found 
in  the  rabbit-pest  of  Australia,  or  in  the  destructive  work  of  a  large 
species  of  bat  in  New  South  Wales.  As  illustrating  the  rapidity  with 
which  the  rodents  breed,  mention  may  be  made  of  a  farmer's 
daughter  who  had  a  pair  of  Norwegian  rats  given  to  her,  and  in 
three  or  four  months  found  them  increased  to  seventy. 

The  Hebrew  word  'akhbar  seems  to  include  any  small  destructive 
rodent,  the  root  of  the  name  meaning  '  to  bite  to  pieces,'  or  '  to 
gnaw.'  *  The  mice  that  marred  the  land  of  the  Philistines  were  pro- 
bably some  kind  of  field-mice,  of  which  several  kinds  occur  at  the 
present  day  in  the  Holy  Land.  The  short-tailed  field-vole,  com- 
monly known  as  the  field-mouse  (Arvicola  arvalis),  is  very  common 
there,  and  perhaps  there  is  not  a  more  destructive  little  creature  in 
existence  than  it.  In  our  own  country  extensive  injury  both  to 
newly-sown  fields  and  to  plantations  has  often  been  caused  by  this 
little  agricultural  pest.  In  the  years  1813  and  1814  the  ravages  were 

23 


354      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

so  great  in  the  New  Forest  and  the  Forest  of  Dean  that  considerable 
alarm  was  felt  lest  the  whole  of  the  young  trees  in  those  extensive 
woods  should  be  destroyed  by  them.' 

Herodotus  has  a  curious  story  about  the  mischief  that  can  be 
wrought  by  mice.  When  Sennacherib  invaded  Egypt  in  the  time  of 
Sethos,  Vulcan  sent  a  great  multitude  of  field-mice,  which  devoured 
all  the  quivers  and  bows  of  the  Assyrian  army,  as  well  as  the  thongs 
by  which  they  managed  their  shields ;  thus  were  the  Assyrians  over- 
thrown. 

Van  Lennep  tells  of  a  brown  rat  which  multiplies  with  such  amaz- 
ing rapidity  that,  were  it  not  for  its  numerous  foes,  a  single  pair 
would  increase  to  nearly  a  thousand  individuals  in  one  year.  Van 
Lennep  gives  an  interesting  account  of  the  short-tailed  field-mouse 
which  abounds  throughout  Western  Asia,  and  'must  be  endowed 
with  great  powers  of  increase,  for  he  has  many  enemies.  The  owl  is 
after  him  by  night,  and  by  day  the  hawk,  with  other  birds  of  prey, 
flutters  in  the  sky,  and  comes  down  with  a  swoop,  and  carries  him 
off  to  his  nest,  while  the  indefatigable  little  ferret  creeps  into  his  hole, 
successfully  encountering  him,  and  destroying  his  little  ones  ;  yet  he 
seems  in  no  wise  diminished.  You  see  him  in  all  the  arable  lands, 
running  across  the  fields,  industriously  carrying  off  the  grain  to  stow 
it  away  for  winter,  chirping  gaily  from  time  to  time,  sitting  up  on  his 
haunches  to  get  a  good  sight  of  you  as  you  approach,  and  then  sud- 
denly diving  into  his  hole.  This  animal  is  apt  so  greatly  to  multiply 
as  at  times  to  cause  a  sensible  diminution  of  the  crops,  and  its 
ravages  are  more  generally  dreaded  than  those  of  the  mole.  A  per- 
fectly trustworthy  friend  has  informed  us  that  in  1863,  being  on  a 
farm  (chiflify  of  an  acquaintance  in  Western  Asia  Minor,  he  saw 
about  noon  the  depredations  committed  by  an  immense  number  of 
these  mice,  which  passed  over  the  ground  like  an  army  of  young 
locusts.  Fields  of  standing  corn  and  barley  disappeared  in  an  in- 
credibly short  space  of  time,  and  as  for  vines  and  mulberry-trees, 
they  were  gnawed  at  the  roots  and  speedily  prostrated.  The  annual 
produce  of  a  farm  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  acres,  which  promised  to 
be  unusually  large,  was  thus  utterly  consumed,  and  the  neighbouring 
farms  suffered  equally.' 

Aristotle,  in  his  *  History  of  Animals,'  says  :  '  In  many  places  mice 
are  wont  to  appear  in  the  fields  in  such  unspeakable  numbers  that 
scarce  anything  is  left  of  the  whole  crop.  So  rapidly  do  they  con- 
sume the  corn,  that  in  some  cases  small  farmers  have  observed  their 
crops  ripe  and  ready  for  the  sickle  on  one  day,  and  coming  the  next 
with  the  reapers,  have  found  them  entirely  devoured.' 


CHANGED  NATURE  OF  THE  BEASTS.          355 

In  1848,  it  is  said,  the  coffee-crop  in  Ceylon  was  entirely  destroyed 
by  mice. 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  what  can  become  of  such  vast  multitudes 
of  creatures,  and  what  natural  agencies  are  employed  to  restore  the 
proper  balance  and  proportion  of  the  creatures  in  a  given  district ; 
but  of  the  possibility  of  a  really  serious  '  plague  of  mice '  there  is 
abundant  evidence. 


Changed  Nature  of  the  Beasts. 

ISAIAH  xi.  6  :  '  The  wolf  also  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall 
lie  down  with  the  kid  ;  and  the  calf  and  the  young  lion  and  the  falling  together, 
and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them.' 

Question. — Is  this  to  be  taken  as  a  literal  prophecy  of  what  shall 
one  day  happen  ? 

Answer. — There  is  no  necessity  whatever  for  forcing  Scripture 
references  in  such  a  bald  and  bare  way.  The  imagination  of  such  a 
time  sufficiently  met  the  case  of  the  prophet.  A  man's  sphere  of 
illustration  may  reasonably  include  what  he  can  imagine,  as  well  as 
what  he  knows.  It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  characteristic  peculi- 
arities of  the  animals  will  ever  be  altered.  They  would  then  become 
other  animals  than  they  are.  The  prophet  has  in  mind  men  who 
may  be  represented  by  the  wolf,  the  leopard,  the  lion,  the  bear,  and 
the  asp  ;  and  the  nature  of  men — or  rather  the  ^-natural  condition 
of  men — may  be  changed  by  Divine  grace. 

Bishop  Wordsivorth  takes  this  view.  The  ancient  expositors  de- 
clared their  judgment  that  these  predictions  have  been  verified  by 
the  moral  and  spiritual  change  wrought  in  savage  nations,  which  for- 
merly were  like  lions,  leopards,  bears,  and  wolves,  and  by  the  bringing 
together  of  hostile  tribes  to  dwell  together  in  peace  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  as  the  savage  and  tame  creatures,  the  unclean  and  clean 
animals,  dwelt  together  in  the  Ark  of  Noah,  the  type  of  the 
Church. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary,  while  admitting  that  the  allegorical 
sense  is  the  primary  one,  says  :  '  This  need  not  exclude  a  real  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  in  the  subordinate  sphere  of  animal  life.  To 
a  mind  which  is  not  so  enslaved  by  the  actual  facts  of  history  that  it 
dares  not  consider  what  the  ideal  order  of  nature  may  fairly  be 
thought  to  demand,  there  is  nothing  unphilosophic  in  such  an  expec- 
tation. On  the  contrary,  reason  itself  requires  us  to  cherish  it.  The 
existence  of  so  many  creatures,  in  which  it  might  almost  seem  that 
bad  passions  or  tempers  were  embodied,  is  of  itself  a  perplexing 

23—2 


356      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

phenomenon.  It  indicates  an  abnormal  condition  of  the  world,  a 
state  of  temporary  frustration  (Rom.  viii.  20)  or  corruption  of 
nature,  from  which  we  may  well  believe  it  shall  be  emancipated  as 
soon  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind  shall  have  fully  established  His 
kingdom  of  righteousness.  How  gladly  the  human  mind  turns  to 
contemplate  such  a  change  is  shown  by  the  fourth  Eclogue  of 
Virgil.' 

Professor  Rawlinson  says :  '  Primarily,  no  doubt,  the  passage  is 
figurative,  and  points  to  harmony  among  men,  who,  in  Messiah's 
kingdom,  shall  no  longer  prey  one  upon  another.  But,  from  the 
highest  spiritual  standpoint,  the  figure  itself  becomes  a  reality,  and 
it  is  seen  that,  if  in  the  "  new  heavens  and  new  earth  "  there  is  an 
animal  creation,  it  will  be  fitting  that  there  harmony  should  equally 
prevail  among  the  inferior  creation.  Human  sin  may  not  have  intro- 
duced rapine  and  violence  among  the  beasts — at  least,  geologists  tell 
us  that  animals  preyed  one  upon  another  long  before  the  earth  was 
the  habitation  of  man — but  still,  man's  influence  may  prevail  to 
eradicate  the  beasts'  natural  impulses,  and  educate  them  to  some- 
thing higher.'  Already  domestication  has  done  something' towards 
this  end. 

The   Curse  on  the  Serpent. 

GENESIS  iii.  14  :  *  And  the  Lord  God  said  unto  the  serpent,  Because  thou  hast 
done  this,  thou  art  cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above  every  beast  of  the  field  ;  upon 
thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days;  of  thy  life.' 

Difficulty. — This  curse  seems  to  imply  an  immediate  change  in  the 
form,  the  habits,  and  the  food  of  the  serpent-class  of  creatures  ;  and  if 
science  can  trace  signs  of  a  gradual  change,  it  finds  no  indication  of  any 
sudden  change. 

Explanation. — It  must  be  fully  admitted  that  geological  dis- 
coveries have  proved  that  the  serpent-form,  as  we  know  it,  is  anterior 
to  the  age  of  man.  There  were  serpents  on  the  pre-Adamic  earth 
whose  structure  was  analogous  to  that  of  the  true  serpents  (Ophidia) 
of  our  day.  Geological  discoveries  have  put  this  as  much  beyond 
doubt  as  the  fact  that  there  were  shell-fish  in  those  primaeval 
times. 

The  Ophidia  range  from  the  top  of  the  chalk,  up  through  the 
Tertiary  group  of  rocks,  and  culminate  at  the  top  of  the  highest 
member  of  that  series — the  Pliocene. 

Professor  Owen  says :  *  The  earliest  evidence  of  an  Ophidian 
reptile  has  been  obtained  from  the  eocene  clay  of  Sheppey ;  it  consists 
of  vertebrae  indicating  a  serpent  of  twelve  feet  in  length — the  Palceophis 


THE  CURSE  ON  THE  SERPENT.  357 

toliapicus.  Still  larger,  more  numerous,  and  better-preserved  vertebrae 
have  been  obtained  from  the  eocene  beds  of  Bracklesham,  on  which 
the  species  Palceophis  typhaus  and  the  Palceophts  porcatus  have  been 
founded.  These  remains  indicate  a  boa-constrictor-like  snake  of 
about  twenty  feet  in  length.  Ophidian  vertebrae  of  much  smaller 
size,  from  the  newer  eocene  at  Hordwell,  support  the  species  Paleryx 
rhombifer  and  Paleryx  depressus.  Fossil  vertebrae  from  a  tertiary 
formation  near  Salonica  have  been  referred  to  a  serpent,  probably 
poisonous,  under  the  name  of  Laophis.  A  species  of  true  viper  has 
been  discovered  in  the  miocene  deposits  at  Sansans,  in  the  South  of 
France.' 

It  is  said  that  embryo  legs  and  feet  have  been  found  under  the 
skin  of  serpents,  indicating  that  they  were  once  of  a  lizard  type ;  but 
this  can  only  apply  to  some  kinds,  and  has  not  been  established  as  a 
fact  concerning  all  serpents. 

Possibly  the  curse  means  that,  henceforth,  degrading  and  repulsive 
associations  shall  be  in  the  minds  of  men  in  connection  with  the 
crawling  or  grovelling  of  the  serpent  types,  and  certainly  there  are  no 
creatures  which  are  so  repulsive  to  man.  Dean  Payne  £mi//i  seems 
to  approve  of  this  explanation :  *  The  serpent  is  but  the  type ; 
diabolic  agency  the  reality.  First,  therefore,  the  serpent  is  con- 
demned to  crawl.  As  he  is  pronounced  to  be  "  cursed  above  "  (or, 
rather,  among)  "all  cattle" — that  is,  the  tame  animals  subjected  to 
man's  service,  and  also  "  among  all  beasts  of  the  field  " — that  is,  the 
wild  animals,  but  a  term  not  applicable  to  reptiles — it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  the  serpent  was  originally  erect  and  beautiful,  and  that 
Adam  had  even  tamed  serpents,  and  had  them  in  his  household. 
But  such  a  transformation  belongs  to  the  region  of  fable,  and  the 
meaning  is,  that  henceforward  the  serpent's  crawling  motion  is  to  be 
to  it  a  mark  of  disgrace,  and  to  Satan  a  sign  of  meanness  and  con- 
tempt. He  won  the  victory  over  our  guileless  first  parents,  and  still 
he  winds  in  and  out  among  men,  ever  bringing  degradation  with  him, 
and  ever  sinking  with  his  victims  into  deeper  abysses  of  shame  and 
infamy.' 

The  part  of  the  curse  relating  apparently  to  the  serpent's  food  is 
explained  by  Thomson  in  the  *  Land  and  the  Book ' :  '  Perhaps  the 
phrase  "eat  dust"  has  a  metaphorical  meaning,  equivalent  to  "bite 
the  dust,"  which,  from  time  immemorial,  has  been  the  favourite  boast 
of  the  Eastern  warrior  over  his  enemy.  To  make  him  eat  dust,  or, 
as  the  Persians  have  it,  dirt,  is  the  most  insulting  threat  that  can  be 
Uttered.  In  pronouncing  sentence  upon  the  serpent,  we  need  not 
suppose  that  God  used  the  identical  Hebrew  words  which  Moses 


358      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

wrote  some  thousands  of  years  afterwards ;  but  the  Jewish  lawgiver 
was  guided  to  a  proverb  which  fully  expressed  the  purport  of  that 
Divine  communication.  We  may  paraphrase  it  after  this  fashion  : 
Boast  not  of  thy  triumph  over  a  feeble  woman,  proud,  deceitful 
spirit;  you  shall  be  overthrown  and  reduced  to  the  most  abject 
degradation.' 

Ayre,  in  his  'Treasury  of  Bible  Knowledge,'  takes  the  position 
which  can  be  most  wisely  and  hopefully  held  :  '  There  was  no  change 
wrought  in  the  constitution  of  the  serpent.  Geological  research  has 
demonstrated  the  existence  of  serpents  with  serpent  forms,  and  (we 
may  conclude)  with  the  same  habits  and  propensities,  in  the  earlier 
periods  of  the  world's  history.  But  it  is  not  by  any  means  a  strange 
thing  for  a  natural  object  to  have  a  new  significance  given  to  it. 
Doubtless  from  ordinary  causes  the  rainbow  had  been  seen  long 
before  it  was  made  the  sign  of  God's  covenant  to  Noah  (Gen. 
ix.  12-17).  The  curse  on  Cain  wrought  no  physical  change  in  him 
(Gen.  iv.  1 1 ).  So  there  was  no  change  in  the  physical  conformation 
of  the  literal  serpent.  But  the  serpent's  habits,  trailing  on  its  belly 
amid  the  dust,  venomous,  and  loathsome  to  the  eye  of  man,  read  to 
every  age  a  striking  lesson,  and  expose  the  tempter,  whose  vehicle  of 
mischief  it  was,  as  cursed  and  to  be  hated.  Mischief  indeed  he  has 
done,  and  can  still  do  ;  he  can  bite  the  heel,  but  it  will  always  be  to 
the  bruising  and  crushing  of  his  own  head.  The  facts  of  the  fall,  as 
narrated  by  the  sacred  historian,  must  not  be  explained  away,  or 
regarded  as  of  a  mythic  character.  Other  parts  of  Scripture  bear 
testimony  to  their  literal  truth  (2  Cor.  xi.  3),  but  yet  to  comprehend 
their  whole  significancy  we  must  look  beyond  the  reptile  to  the  dark 
power  who  for  a  time  identified  himself  with  it.  Hence  it  was  that 
the  serpent  was  feared,  and  thought  a  being  to  be  propitiated.  And 
hence  that  strange  worship  which  in  so  many  ages  and  so  many 
lands  was  offered  to  it.  It  was  from  this  well-known  practice,  true  in 
the  main,  but  not  true  in  the  particular  instance,  that  part  of  the 
Apocryphal  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  was  constructed.' 

Morning  Cloud  and  Early  Dew. 

HOSEA  vi.  4  (Rev.  Ver.)  :  '  O  Ephraim,  what  shall  I  do  unto  thee  ?  O  Judah, 
what  shall  I  do  unto  thee?  for  your  goodness  is  as  a  morning  cloud,  and  as  the  dew 
that  goeth  early  away.' 

Question. — Are  there  any  marked  peculiarities  in  the  dew  of 
Palestine  which  may  account  for  the  frequent  allusions  to  it  in 
Scripture  ? 

Answer.  —  The  influences  of  the  dew  are  not  prominent  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  dwell  in  rainy  countries,  though  its  import- 


MORNING  CLOUD  AND  EARLY  DEW.          359 

ance  ought  always  to  be  recognised.  In  Eastern  lands  vegetation  is 
very  largely  dependent  on  it,  and  the  dews  are  far  more  copious  than 
we  can  imagine.  In  warm  countries  the  night-dews  supply  the  place 
of  showers. 

Savary  says  of  Egypt :  '  It  would  be  uninhabitable  did  not  the 
nocturnal  dews  restore  life  to  vegetables.  These  dews  are  so  copious, 
especially  in  summer,  that  the  earth  is  deeply  soaked  with  them,  and 
in  the  morning  one  would  imagine  that  rain  had  fallen  during  the 
night.' 

The  usual  scientific  explanation  of  the  dew  is  as  follows  :  '  It  is 
formed  during  the  night  by  a  gradual  deposition,  on  bodies  rendered, 
by  radiation,  colder  than  the  bodies  round  them,  of  part  of  the 
moisture  which  rises  invisibly  from  the  surface  of  water  into  the  air 
during  the  heat  of  the  day.  In  a  clear  night,  the  objects  on  the 
surface  of  the  earth  radiate  heat  to  the  sky  through  the  air,  which 
impedes  not,  while  there  is  nothing  nearer  than  the  stars  to  return  the 
radiation  :  they  consequently  soon  become  colder ;  and  if  the  air 
around  has  its  usual  load  of  moisture,  part  of  this  will  be  deposited  on 
them  in  the  form  of  dew,  exactly  as  the  invisible  moisture  in  the  air 
of  a  room  is  deposited  on  a  cold  glass  bottle  when  brought  into  it 
from  a  colder  place.  The  reason  why  the  dew  falls  or  is  formed  so 
much  more  copiously  upon  the  soft  spongy  surface  of  leaves  and 
flowers,  where  it  is  wanted,  than  on  the  hard  surface  of  stone  or  sand, 
where  it  would  be  of  no  use,  is  the  difference  of  their  radiating  powers. 
There  is  no  state  of  the  atmosphere  in  which  artificial  dew  may  not 
be  made  to  form  on  a  body,  by  sufficiently  cooling  it,  and  the  degree 
of  heat  at  which  the  dew  begins  to  appear  is  called  the  dew-point. 
In  cloudy  nights,  heat  is  radiated  back  from  the  clouds  ;  and,  the 
earth  below  being  not  so  much  cooled,  the  dew  is  scanty  or  de- 
ficient.' 

Dr.  Duns,  explaining  the  relation  of  the  dew  to  Gideon's  fleece, 
remarks  :  '  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  wool  is  one  of  the  substances  best 
fitted  for  the  reception  of  moisture  in  the  form  of  dew.  The  metals 
are  least  so.  Gideon  was  led  to  choose  a  substance  on  which  the 
sign  sought  for  would  be  most  distinctly  marked.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  seek  to  establish  that  the  phenomena  described  were 
miraculous.  They  served  as  a  sign  ;  this  was  the  only  purpose  for 
which  they  were  regulated.  By  a  few  simple  experiments  the  appear- 
ances which  met  the  eye  of  Gideon  can  be  produced.  The  point  of 
the  narrative  is,  that  by  the  arrangement  of  Him  in  whose  hands  are 
all  the  forces  of  nature,  the  phenomena  for  which  His  servants  looked 
were  produced  at  the  time  and  in  the  circumstances  determined  on 


360     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

by  Him,  without  any  artificial  interferences  thereto.  Gideon  had 
noticed  that  in  nature,  when  dew  was  formed,  all  the  articles  in  the 
same  area  became  covered  with  it.  Let  there  then  be  an  exception 
to  this — let  the  fleece  be  wet,  and  all  the  earth  around  dry.  It  was 
so.  Again,  let  the  earth  be  wet  and  the  fleece  dry.  "  And  God  did 
so  that  night :  for  it  was  dry  upon  the  fleece  only,  and  there  was  dew 
on  all  the  ground."  In  the  one  case,  the  sky  needed  to  be  clouded 
except  at  the  point  which  looked  down  on  the  fleece ;  in  the  other,  it 
needed  to  be  all  clear  except  above  the  fleece.  Thus  though  natural 
means  might  be  used  in  producing  the  effect,  these  were  so  guided  as 
to  shut  Gideon  up  to  the  direct  acknowledgment  of  God's  interfer- 
ence in  making  the  phenomena  a  sign.' 

One  of  the  freshest  things  in  Dr.  Geikie's  '  Holy  Land  and  Bible ' 
is  his  explanation  of  the  causes  of  dew  in  Palestine.  Writing  of  the 
melon-growing  district  of  Palestine,  he  says  :  *  The  secret  of  this 
luxuriant  fertility  lies  in  the  rich  supply  of  moisture  afforded  by  the 
sea  winds  which  blow  inland  each  night,  and  water  the  face  of  the 
whole  land.  There  is  no  dew,  properly  so  called,  in  Palestine,  for 
there  is  no  moisture  in  the  hot  summer  air  to  be  chilled  into  dew- 
drops  by  the  coolness  of  the  night,  as  in  a  climate  like  ours.  From 
May  till  October  rain  is  unknown,  the  sun  shining  with  unclouded 
brightness  day  after  day.  The  heat  becomes  intense,  the  ground 
hard ;  and  vegetation  would  perish  but  for  the  moist  west  winds  that 
come  each  night  from  the  sea.  The  bright  skies  cause  the  heat  of 
the  day  to  radiate  very  quickly  into  space,  so  that  the  nights  are  as 
cold  as  the  day  is  the  reverse :  a  peculiarity  of  climate  from  which 
poor  Jacob  suffered,  thousands  of  years  ago,  for  he,  too,  speaks  of  "  the 
drought  consuming  him  by  day,  and  the  cold  by  night."  To  this 
coldness  of  the  night  air  the  indispensable  watering  of  all  plant  life  is 
due.  The  winds,  loaded  with  moisture,  are  robbed  of  it  as  they  pass 
over  the  land,  the  cold  air  condensing  it  into  drops  of  water,  which 
fall  in  a  gracious  rain  of  mist  on  every  thirsty  blade.  In  the  morning 
the  fog  thus  created  rests  like  a  sea  over  the  plains,  and  far  up  the 
sides  of  the  hills,  which  raise  their  heads  above  it  like  so  many  islands. 
At  sunrise,  however,  the  scene  speedily  changes.  By  the  kindling  light 
the  mist  is  transformed  into  vast  snow-white  clouds,  which  presently 
break  into  separate  masses,  and  rise  up  the  mountain-sides,  to  dis- 
appear in  the  blue  above,  dissipated  by  the  increasing  heat.  These 
are  the  "  morning  clouds  and  the  early  dew  that  go  away  "  of  which 
Hosea  speaks  so  touchingly.  Anyone  standing  at  sunrise  on  a 
vantage-ground  in  Jerusalem,  or  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  looking 
down  towards  the  Dead  Sea,  must  have  seen  how  the  masses  of 


ANCIENT  GIANT  RA  CES.  36 1 

billowy  vapour,  filling  the  valleys  during  the  night,  sway  and  break 
up  when  the  light  streams  on  them  from  over  the  mountains  of  Moab, 
their  shape  and  colour  changing  each  moment  before  the  kindling 
warmth  as  they  rose  from  the  hollows  of  the  landscape,  and  then  up 
the  slopes  of  the  hills,  till  they  passed  in  opal  or  snowy  brightness 
into  the  upper  air,  and  at  last  faded  into  the  unclouded  sky.' 


SUB-SECTION  V. 
DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  ETHNOLOGY  AND  ARCHEOLOGY. 


Ancient  Giant  Races. 

GENESIS  vi.  4 :  '  There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  strange  that  ?w  traces  of  the  existences  of  what 
we  understand  by  giant  races  have  ever  been  found  in  any  part  of  the 
world. 

Explanation. — Families  of  unusual  height,  size,  and  strength 
have  been  found  in  every  age,  and  in  almost  every  country,  but  the 
general  average  of  height,  size,  and  strength  has  been  preserved  in 
all  races.  The  variations  from  the  tallest  to  the  shortest  have  been 
but  slight.  '  So  far  as  research  has  gone,  ancient  tombs,  mummies, 
armour,  etc.,  give  evidence  that  from  the  earliest  historic  ages,  the 
ordinary  size  of  the  human  race  has  been  nearly  the  same.  But  the 
existence  of  Certain  tall  tribes  is  neither  incredible  nor  improbable  : 
indeed,  we  know  on  the  surest  evidence  that,  according  to  climate, 
there  is  a  variety  in  the  sizes  of  men  ;  the  natives  of  the  extreme 
north,  as  the  Laplanders  and  Esquimaux,  being  diminutive,  while 
those  of  other  regions — the  Patagonians,  for  example,  and  other 
tribes  of  South  America — though  not  so  gigantic  as  they  were  once 
represented,  are  remarkably  tall.  Tallness  of  stature  is  often  found 
to  run  in  families  ;  and  there  are  plenty  of  examples  within  modern 
memory  of  individuals  attaining  the  extraordinary  height  of  seven  or 
even  eight  feet.' 

The  term  giants  as  applied  to  the  antediluvians  seems  to  refer  to 
character  rather  than  to  bodily  size.  They  were  a  fierce  and  de- 
praved race,  who  had  filled  the  earth  with  violence. 

The  allusions  made  to  the  Anakim,  Emim,  Rephaim,  etc.,  indicate 
the  fear  of  the  Israelites,  which  led  them  to  exaggerate  the  bodily 


362      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

size  and  strength  of  their  enemies.  In  fact,  overgrown  giants  are  not 
to  be  greatly  feared,  for  they  are  usually  unwieldy,  clumsy,  and  dull- 
brained,  as  was  Goliath  of  Gath.  The  literature  of  the  nations  con- 
stantly records  how  the  quick-witted  overcome  the  big-bodied,  as  in 
our  own  stories  of  '  Jack  the  Giant-Killer,'  and  Abbe  Hue's  story  of 
the  '  Giant  of  Efe.' 

There  is  good  reason,  based  on  the  measurement  of  the  mummies, 
to  believe  that  the  average  stature  of  the  Egyptians  was  five  and  a 
half  feet ;  and,  to  them,  anything  over  six  feet  would  seem  to  be 
gigantic.  It  should  also  be  noticed  that,  though  the  height  of  some 
individuals  is  given  in  cubits,  the  size  of  the  cubit  varied,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  decide,  in  any  given  case,  which  standard  was  used. 

Referring  to  Goliath,  Ishbi-benob,  etc.,  Dr.  Geikie  says  :  *  These 
colossal  warriors  seem  to  have  been  the  last  of  their  race,  which  we 
do  not  need  to  conceive  of  as  all  gigantic,  but  only  as  noted  for 
boasting  some  extra  tall  men  among  a  people  famous  for  their  stature. 
The  Goths  in  old  times  were  spoken  of  in  the  same  way  by  their 
contemporaries  as  a  race  of  giants,  but  though  they  were  huge  com- 
pared with  the  populations  they  invaded,  giants  were  a  very  rare 
exception  among  them,  as  among  other  nations.' 

The  word  'giants,' in  Gen.  vi.  4,  means  '  the  distinguished '  (Tuc/i), 
*  invaders '  (Keil\  '  tyrants  '  (Luther],  '  fallen  ones,'  '  apostates ' 
(DditzscK).  They  were  powerful  men,  and  doers  of  violent  deeds. 

Dr.  Duns  notices  that  'two  classes  are  referred  to  :  (i)  the  giants 
(Nephilim) — "  There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days  "  ;  (2) 
the  mighty  ones  (Gibborini) — "The  same  became  mighty  men  which 
were  of  old,  men  of  renown."  The  statement  that  there  were  giants 
is  complete  in  itself.  Having  been  told  this,  we  are  next  informed 
that  those  were  mighty  men.  They  were  thus  both  Nephilim  and 
Gibborim — both  giants  and  other  strong  ones.  The  giants  are  not 
affirmed  to  have  been  born  of  the  daughters  of  men  who  had  been 
united  to  the  sons  of  God.  The  "  strong  ones  "  were  their  children. 
There  is  no  necessity,  either  from  the  tenor  of  this  verse  or  from  the 
use  of  the  word  in  other  portions  of  Scripture,  for  holding  that  these 
"  strong  ones  "  were  "  giants."  The  same  word  occurs  in  the  singular 
in  Isaiah  iii.  2,  where  it  points  to  eminence  as  a  military  leader,  and 
to  a  type  of  heroism  which  is  well  illustrated  by  the  great  captains  of 
modern  times.  In  them  the  qualities  of  greatness  are  moral  and 
intellectual ;  they  do  not  consist  in  personal  strength  and  physical 
prowess.  The  expression  which  follows  indicates  men  of  the  latter 
stamp — "  the  mighty  man  (the  hero)  and  the  man  of  war  (the  man  of 
personal  strength)."  It  thus  appears  that  the  Nephilim  were  men  of 


ANCIENT  GIANT  RACES.  363 

great  stature,  distinguished,  because  of  well-marked  bodily  features, 
by  the  name  "  giants."  Scripture  usage  is  clear  on  this  matter.  The 
report  of  the  men  who  were  sent  by  Moses  to  spy  out  the  land  of 
Canaan  concluded  with  the  words,  "And  there  we  saw  the  giants 
(the  Nephilim\  the  sons  of  Anak,  which  come  of  the  giants  (the 
Nephilim) ;  and  we  were  in  our  own  sight  as  grasshoppers,  and  so 
were  we  in  their  sight"  (Num.  xiii.  35).  The  way  in  which  the 
giants  are  introduced  in  the  sacred  narrative  suggests  that  they  were 
regarded  as  the  wonders  of  their  time,  and  as  comparatively  rare 
among  the  families  of  men.  The  ordinary  size  of  men  seems  to 
have  been  much  the  same  in  all  time.  That  this  was  undoubtedly 
the  case  during  the  earliest  periods  of  history,  is  seen  from  the  tombs 
of  Egypt  And  there  is  no  countenance  given  here  to  the  popular 
impression  that  all  the  men  in  antediluvian  times  were  giants. 
That  there  were,  in  those  ancient  times  before  the  flood,  men  of 
a  gigantic  size  and  strength,  is  a  thing  very  credible,  both  from  later 
instances  in  historians  both  sacred  and  profane,  and  modern  instances 
in  our  own  times.  But  we  must  not  conclude  from  this,  as  some 
have  done,  that  mankind  in  general  were,  in  the  first  ages,  of  a  much 
larger  stature  than  they  are  at  present ;  though  the  number  of  giants 
seems  to  have  been  much  greater  before  the  flood  than  afterwards.' 

Calvin  says  :  '  I  class  myself  on  the  side  of  those  who  think  that 
these  giants  were  so  called  because,  like  a  tempest  or  hurricane 
which  ravages  the  fields,  and  destroys  the  crops,  these  brigands,  by 
means  of  their  perpetual  invasions,  spread  through  the  world  devasta- 
tion and  carnage.  Moses  did  not  say  that  they  were  of  extraordinary 
physical  stature,  but  only  that  they  were  corporally  very  robust.' 

The  author  of  the  '  Explication  du  Livre  de  la  Genese '  says : 
'  They  were  not,  perhaps,  all  of  an  enormous  height  or  size  .  .  .  but 
they  were  all,  as  the  Scripture  describes  them,  full  of  confidence  in 
their  strength,  their  prowess,  their  training,  and  their  skill  in  every 
exercise  of  the  body,  but  making  no  account  of  judgment,  learning, 
piety,  or  justice.' 

The  Origin  of  Woman. 

GENESIS  ii.  21,  22  :  'And  the  Lord  God  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  the 
man,  and  he  slept ;  and  he  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed  up  the  flesh  instead 
thereof:  and  the  rib,  which  the  Lord  God  had  taken  from  the  man,  made  he  a 
woman  and  brought  her  unto  the  man.' 

Difficulty. — If  this  is  strictly  descriptive,  it  would  seem  reasonable 
to  expect  that  man  should  /lave,  on  one  side  of  his  body,  a  rib  less  than 
woman. 

Explanation. — Early  legends   are  wrongly  treated  when  they 


364      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

are  regarded  as  descriptive  or  historical.  They  embody  the  poetry 
of  the  ages  to  which  they  belong  ;  and  this  legend  preserves,  in  a 
poetic  form,  the  facts  that  woman  as  well  as  man  is  the  immediate 
creation  of  God,  and  that  God  gave  woman  to  be  man's  helpmeet. 

There  have  been  very  curious  traditions  preserved  which  relate  to 
the  origin  of  woman  ;  and  science  appears  to  have  discovered  some 
very  curious  facts  bearing  on  the  subject. 

It  should  first  be  noticed,  as  entirely  removing  the  difficulty  con- 
nected with  the  rib,  that  the  word  should  be  translated  '  side,'  and  the 
sentence  should  read,  '  The  side  he  built  up  into  a  woman.'  It  is, 
however,  no  more  easy  for  us  to  conceive  of  man's  side  being  made 
into  a  woman,  than  man's  rib. 

The  form  in  which  the  origin  of  woman  is  given  to  us  in  the  early 
legend  has  suggested  the  idea  that  man  and  woman  were  originally 
united  in  one  body,  till  the  Creator  separated  them.  But  though  we 
do  find  stamens  and  pistils — the  two  forms  necessary  to  ordinary 
vegetable  generation — on  the  same  tree  or  flower,  there  are  neither 
geological  nor  existent  animals  in  which  the  male  and  female  prin- 
ciples are  combined. 

The  scientific  notion  is  best  represented  by  Darwin,  who,  in  his 
second  book,  showed  that  '  man  is  developed  like  other  animals  from 
an  ovule  or  egg  about  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-fifth  part  of  an 
inch  in  diameter ;  in  embryo  he  bears  the  closest  resemblance  to 
other  embryonic  forms  ;  he  has  rudimentary  muscles,  like  those 
which  twitch  the  skin  of  horses  ;  he  has  even  the  faint  survival  of  a 
point  to  his  ears  and  the  genuine  remnant  of  a  tail.  These  and 
other  details  rank  him  merely  as  one  of  the  Quadrumana  (four- 
handed  animals),  and  afford  him  a  position  among  the  primates, 
which  include  all  the  apes  and  monkeys.  It  is  even  possible  to  go 
further,  and  assign  him  a  place  among  the  Catarhine  (downward 
nostril),  and  not  among  the  Platyrhine  (broad  nostril)  apes,  on 
account  of  the  character  of  his  nose  and  teeth,  and,- as  the  former 
are  confined  to  the  Old  World,  and  the  latter  to  the  New,  to  conclude 
that  he  first  assumed  his  final  characteristics  in  the  eastern  hemi- 
sphere, perhaps  in  Africa.  In  tracing  his  development  to  this 
position,  we  may  believe  that  all  the  Quadrumana  were  derived  from 
an  ancient  marsupial  animal  (i.e.,  one  with  a  pouch  like  the  kan- 
garoo), and  this  through  a  long  line  of  diversified  forms,  from  some 
creature  dwelling  half  on  land  and  half  in  water,  and  this  again  from 
some  fish-like  animal.'  '  In  the  dim  obscurity  of  the  past  we  can  see 
that  the  early  progenitors  of  all  the  Vertebrata  must  have  been  an 
aquatic  animal,  provided  with  branchiae'  (gills,  of  which  the  faint 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  WOMAN.  365 

trace  in  his  embryo  are  the  last  surviving  proof  in  man),  '  with  the 
two  sexes  united  in  the  same  individual,  and  with  most  organs  of  the 
body  (such  as  the  brain  and  heart)  imperfectly  or  not  at  all  de- 
veloped.' 

The  Talmud  declares,  in  the  Bereshith  rabba,  that  Adam  was 
created  at  once  male  and  female.  There  is  a  Babylonian  legend  of 
the  creation,  which  makes  the  present  world  of  living  creatures  be 
preceded  by  a  world  of  biform  monsters  with  two  faces.  '  Suppose 
then  that  the  first  being  formed  was  a  double  being,  both  male  and 
female  in  one,  what  we  have  recorded  in  Gen.  ii.  21-23  would  be  the 
separation  of  the  two  into  distinct  beings,  or  the  removal  of  the  one 
from  the  other's  "side."  ' 

The  following  legends  were  related  by  Persian  Brahmins  to  a 
traveller  named  John  Marshall,  in  the  early  part  of  last  century. 
Once  on  a  time,  as  (God)  was  set  in  eternity,  it  came  into  His  mind 
to  make  something,  and,  immediately,  no  sooner  had  He  thought  the 
same,  but  that  the  same  minute  was  a  perfect  beautiful  woman 
present  immediately  before  Him,  which  He  called  Adea  Suktee,  that 
is,  the  first  woman.  Then  this  figure  put  into  His  mind  the  figure 
af  a  man,  which  He  had  no  sooner  conceived  in  His  mind,  but  that  he 
also  started  up,  and  represented  himself  before  Him  ;  this  He  called 
Manapuise,  that  is,  the  first  man  ;  then,  upon  a  reflection  of  these 
;hings,  He  resolved  further  to  create  several  places  for  them  to  abide 
n,  and  accordingly  assuming  a  subtil  body,  He  breathed  in  a 
minute  the  whole  universe,  and  everything  therein,  from  the  least  to 
he  greatest.' 

4  The  Brahmins  of  Persia  tell  long  stories  of  a  great  giant  that  was 
ed  into  a  most  delicate  garden,  which,  upon  certain  conditions, 
,hould  be  his  own  for  ever.  But  one  evening,  in  a  cool  shade,  one 
)f  the  wicked  devotas,  or  spirits,  came  to  him  and  tempted  him  with 
ast  sums  of  gold,  and  all  the  most  precious  jewels  that  can  be 
magined;  but  he  courageously  withstood  that  temptation,  as  not 
mowing  what  value  or  use  they  were  of.  But  at  length  this  wicked 
Devota  brought  to  him  a  fair  woman,  who  so  charmed  him  that,  for 
icr  sake,  he  most  willingly  broke  all  his  conditions,  and  thereupon 
/as  turned  out.' 

There  is  an  ancient  Persian  legend  of  the  first  man  and  woman 
;hich  is  very  singular.  Their  names  are  given  as  Meschia  and 
Weschiane,  and  they  lived  for  a  long  time  happily  together :  they 
unted  together,  and  discovered  fire,  and  made  an  axe,  and  with  it 
uilt  a  hut.  But  no  sooner  had  they  thus  set  up  housekeeping  than 
ley  fought  terribly,  and,  after  wounding  each  other,  parted.  It  is 


366      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

not  said  which  remained  master  of  the  hut,  but  we  learn  that  afte; 
.  fifty  years  of  divorce  they  were  reunited.' 

Many  Rabbis  imagined  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  originally  createc 
with  one  body  between  them,  and  they  curiously  conceived  that  th( 
two  heads  were  turned  back  to  back,  Eve  being  afterwards  separated 
and  presented  to  Adam  as  his  wife.  Lenormant  gets  over  the  diffi 
culty  by  a  satisfactory  suggestion,  if  it  can  be  duly  supported.  H< 
thinks  the  Hebrew  text  means  that  Eve  was  formed  at  Adam's  side 
not  from  it.  Delitzsch  does  not  think  Adam  was  double  sexed 
He  says  :  *  To  speak  generally,  the  form  of  Adam  was  without  sex 
In  its  most  refined  nature  Adam  had  the  sexual  contrast  in  himself 
With  its  going  forth  from  the  unity  of  his  personality,  there  neces 
sarily  connected  itself  that  configuration  which  was  demanded  for  th< 
then  commencing  sexual  life.' 

The  South  Sea  Islanders  say  that  'the  first  man,  who  had  pre 
viously  been  a  stone,  thought  one  day  he  would  make  a  woman 
He  collected  the  light  earth  on  the  surface  of  the  ground  in  the  forn 
of  a  human  body,  with  head,  arms,  and  legs.  He  then  plucked  ou 
one  of  his  left  ribs  and  thrust  it  into  the  breast  of  his  earth-mode" 
Instantly  the  earth  became  alive,  and  up  starts  a  woman.  He  calle* 
her  fvi,  which  is  their  word  for  "  rib." ' 

Joseph's  Land  Scheme. 

GENESIS  xlvii.  20  :  '  And  Joseph  bought  all  the  land  of  Egypt  for  Pharaoh 
for  the  Egyptians  sold  every  man  his  field,  because  the  famine  prevailed  over  them 
so  the  land  became  Pharaoh's.' 

Difficulty. — According  to  modern  ideas,  Joseph  secured  the  indt 
pendence  of  the  crown  at  the  cost  of  the  liberties  and  natural  rights  o 
the  people. 

Explanation. — All  political  devices  have  to  be  considered  i; 
view  of  the  special  circumstances  of  the  nation  with  which  they  ar 
concerned.  The  sovereignty  of  the  people  is  entirely  a  moderr 
civilized,  and  Western  notion.  The  prevailing  idea  throughout  th 
world  has  been  that  peoples  exist  for  the  sake  of  their  rulers,  an 
even  in  Western  lands  it  is  difficult  to  get  the  better  idea  fully  estal 
lished — that  rulers  exist  for  the  sake  of  the  people. 

It  is  curious,  however,  to  notice  that  the  modern  socialistic  movt 
ments  tend  in  the  direction  of  Joseph's  scheme,  and  propose  the  r< 
sumption  of  land  by  the  State,  the  removal  of  all  private  ownershi 
of  land,  and  the  division  of  the  country  in  the  interests  of  the  peopk 

The  special  circumstances  of  Egypt  in  Joseph's  time  may  parti 
explain  his  scheme,  and  show  it  to  have  been  good  statesmanship 


JOSEPH'S  LAND  SCHEME.  367 

If 'a  foreign  dynasty  was  ruling,  Joseph's  plan  tended  to  give  it  fixity. 
But  we  may  look  for  the  real  explanation  of  his  scheme  in  the  need 
for  securing  the  country  against  possible  recurrence  of  famine.  The 
improvident  people  would  never  store  their  grain  in  any  efficient  way, 
but  the  universal  tax  which  Joseph  secured  sufficed  both  for  the 
royal  and  national  expenditure,  and  for  the  full  furnishing  of  the 
great  national  store-cities  and  granaries. 

That  Joseph's  was  a  familiar  Eastern  scheme  is  shown  by  the  con- 
dition of  Egypt  recently  under  Mehemet  AH.  By  an  edict  he  appro- 
priated the  whole  country  to  himself,  so  that  Egypt  became  as  much 
the  property  of  its  ruler  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Joseph.  The  people 
were  not  turned  out  of  their  possessions,  except  when  it  pleased  the 
Pasha  to  take  the  land  under  his  own  care.  In  that  case  the  fellah 
was  not  permitted  to  seek  some  other  residence,  but  had  to  remain 
as  a  labourer  in  the  Pasha's  service.  Two-thirds  of  the  rental  went 
to  the  government  as  taxes. 

It  is  now  generally  assumed  that  the  Pharaoh  under  whom  Joseph 
served  was  Apepi,  the  last  shepherd  (Hyksos)  king,  and  prede- 
cessor of  Aahmes,  who,  after  a  long  and  severe  struggle,  expelled  the 
Hyksos,  and  re-established  in  Egypt  the  rule  of  a  native  dynasty. 

Lange  says  :  *  This  proceeding  of  Joseph,  reducing  the  Egyptians 
in  their  great  necessity  to  a  state  of  entire  dependence  on  Pharaoh, 
has  been  made  the  ground  of  severe  reproach,  and,  indeed,  it  does 
look  strange  at  first.  The  promotion  of  earthly  welfare,  and  of  a 
comfortable  existence,  cannot  excuse  a  theocratic  personage  in  bring- 
ing a  free  people  into  the  condition  of  servants.'  Lange  thinks 
Joseph  did  not  act  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  and  that  he  could  not  be 
expected  to  advise  Pharaoh  from  the  points  of  view  of  modern  con- 
stitutional governments.  Professor  Tayler  Lewis,  in  a  note  to  Lange, 
says :  '  All  this  difficulty  about  Joseph's  proceeding  vanishes  when 
one  studiously  considers  what  the  Egyptians  would  have  done,  or 
how  fatal  their  free  improvidence  might  have  proved,  without  his 
sagacious  political  economy.  There  would  have  been  no  cattle  to 
be  sold,  the  lands  would  have  been  barren  for  the  want  of  hands  to 
till  them.  Each  one  for  himself,  without  a  common  weal,  and  a 
wise  ruler  taking  care  of  it,  and  taxing  them  for  such  care,  there 
would  not  have  been,  in  their  future  prospects,  any  stimulus  to 
frugality  or  industry.  It  is  yet  an  unsettled  question  whether  un- 
regulated individual  cultivation  of  land  in  small  portions,  or  a  judi- 
cious system  of  landlordism,  for  which,  of  course,  there  must  be  rent 
or  tax,  is  the  better  method  for  the  universal  good.  The  20  per 
cent,  which  Joseph  exacted  for  the  government  care  was  not  a 


368     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

system  of  slavery,  and  it  may  have  been  far  better  than  a  much 
greater  percentage,  perhaps,  to  capitalists  and  usurers.'  To  this 
should  be  added  that  the  proportion  of  a  fifth  enabled  the  govern- 
ment to  secure  stores  of  food  against  possible  famine  times,  as  is  now 
done,  to  some  extent,  in  China. 

Kitto  gives  a  hearty  approval  of  Joseph's  scheme,  and  adds  :  *  The 
Scripture,  as  usual,  records  the  proceedings  without  passing  any 
judgment  upon  them ;  and  considering  the  influences  by  which  he 
was  surrounded,  and  the  age  and  the  circumstances  in  which  he 
lived,  it  would  be  surprising  indeed  to  find  all  his  proceedings  con- 
formable to  modern  European  notions  of  political  justice.  It  would 
be  enough  to  find  that  his  measures  were  such  as  would  in  his  own 
age  be  considered  just  and  wise,  and  if  in  any  point  his  ideas  were 
in  advance  of  his  age,  he  is  entitled  to  the  greater  credit,  for  we  can- 
not rightly  expect  more  from  him  than  the  spirit  of  his  own  age 
demanded.' 

We  may  sum  up  the  matter  by  saying  that  '  the  change  effected  by 
Joseph  in  the  tenure  of  the  lands  could  only  have  been  necessary  if 
it  were  the  policy  of  the  king  to  secure  his  throne.  Joseph  bought 
up  the  goods  and  lands  of  the  people,  and  let  them  out  again  at  the 
fixed  rent  of  one-fifth  of  the  produce.  He  thus  made  the  people 
directly  dependent  on  the  king,  taking  away  from  them  all  their 
rights  of  personal  liberty  and  property.  The  priesthood  were 
exempted  from  this  arrangement,  possibly  because  they  were  too 
strong  a  body,  and  exercised  too  wide  an  influence,  to  permit  such 
interference  with  their  liberties.  It  is  very  easy  to  see  how  Joseph's 
device  was  in  the  interests  of  the  king,  but  very  difficult  to  see  that  it 
could  be  a  blessing  for  the  people.' 

NOTE. — The  Speaker's  Commentary  gives  the  illustrations  of 
Joseph's  scheme  that  are  found  in  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  Strabo, 
and  the  monuments  :  '  Herodotus  says  that  Sesostris  divided  the 
soil  among  the  inhabitants,  assigning  square  plots  of  land  of  equal 
size  to  all,  and  obtained  his  revenue  from  a  rent  paid  annually  by 
the  holders.  Diodorus  says  that  Sesoosis  divided  the  whole  country 
into  thirty-six  nomes,  and  set  nomarchs  over  each  to  take  care  of  the 
royal  revenue,  and  administer  their  respective  provinces.  Strabo 
tells  us  that  the  occupiers  of  land  held  it  subject  to  a  rent.  Again, 
Diodorus  represents  the  land  as  possessed  only  by  the  priests,  the 
king,  and  the  warriors,  which  testimony  is  confirmed  by  the  sculptures. 
The  discrepancy  of  this  from  the  account  in  Genesis  is  apparent  in 
the  silence  of  the  latter  concerning  the  lands  assigned  to  the  warrior 


JOSEPH'S  LAND  SCHEME.  369 

caste.  The  reservation  of  their  lands  to  the  priests  is  expressly  men- 
tioned in  Gen.  xlvii.  22,  but  nothing  is  said  of  the  warriors.  There 
was,  however,  a  marked  difference  in  the  tenure  of  lands  by  the 
warriors  from  that  by  the  priests.  Herodotus  says  that  each  warrior 
had  assigned  to  him  twelve  arurce.  of  land  (each  arura  being  a  square 
of  TOO  Egyptian  cubits) — that  is  to  say,  there  were  no  landed  posses- 
sions vested  in  the  caste,  but  certain  fixed  portions  assigned  to  each 
person,  and  these,  as  given  by  the  sovereign's  will,  so  apparently 
were  liable  to  be  withheld  or  taken  away  by  the  same  will ;  for  we 
find  that  Sethos,  the  contemporary  of  Sennacherib,  and  therefore  of 
Hezekiah  and  Isaiah,  actually  deprived  the  warriors  of  these  lands, 
which  former  kings  had  conceded  to  them.  It  is,  therefore,  as 
Knobel  remarks,  highly  probable  that  the  original  reservation  of 
their  lands  was  only  to  the  priests,  and  that  the  warrior  caste  did 
not  come  into  possession  of  their  twelve  arurce  each  till  after  the 
time  of  Joseph.' 

'  It  may  be  a  question  whether  the  division  of  the  land  into  thirty- 
six  nomes  and  into  square  plots  of  equal  size  by  Sesostris  be  the 
same  transaction  as  the  purchasing  and  restoring  of  the  land  by 
Joseph.  The  people  were  already  in  possession  of  their  property 
when  Joseph  bought  it,  and  they  received  it  again  on  condition  of 
paying  a  fifth  of  the  produce  as  rent.  But  whether  or  not  this  act 
of  Sesostris  be  identified  with  that  of  Joseph  (or  the  Pharaoh  of 
Joseph),  the  profane  historians  and  the  monuments  completely  bear 
out  the  testimony  of  the  author  of  Genesis  as  to  the  condition  of 
land  tenure,  and  its  origin  in  an  exercise  of  the  sovereign's 
authority.' 

Who  was  there  to  find  Cain  ? 

GENESIS  iv.  14  :  '  And  I  shall  be  a  fugitive  and  a  vagabond  '  (wanderer)  '  in  the 
earth  :  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  one  that  findeth  me  shall  slay  me.' 

Difficulty. — This  exclamation  of  Cain's  appears  to  assume  the 
recognised  existence  of  other  races  besides  that  of  Adam. 

Explanation. — It  is  quite  certain  that  Cain  would  not  fear  his 
own  descendants,  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  the  descendants  of  Seth 
(who  was,  however,  born  later  than  this)  were  not  scattered  over  the 
earth  so  as  to  meet  Cain  in  his  wanderings,  and  avenge  the  blood  of 
Abel.  We  seem  to  be  shut  up  to  two  suggestions.  Abel  may  have 
left  a  family,  and  it  would  keep  the  idea  of  blood-revenge.  Or  Adam 
may  have  had  other  children  besides  those  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
Some  would  go  further  than  these  suggestions,  and  assume  the  exist- 
ence of  other  races,  with  other  human  parentage  than  Adam's. 

24 


370      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Delitzsch  gets  over  the  difficulty  too  easily.  *  It  is  clear  that  the 
blood-avengers  whom  Cain  feared  must  be  those  who  should  exist  in 
the  future,  when  his  father's  family  had  become  enlarged  and  spread 
abroad;  for  that  the  murderer  should  be  punished  with  death  (we 
might  even  say  that  the  taking  vengeance  for  blood  is  the  fountain  of 
regulated  law  and  right  respecting  murder)  is  a  righteous  sentence 
written  in  any  man's  breast ;  and  that  Cain  already  sees  the  earth 
full  of  avengers  is  just  the  way  of  the  murderer  who  sees  himself  on 
all  sides  surrounded  by  avenging  spirits,  and  feels  himself  subjected 
to  their  tormentings.' 

Lange  thinks  that  Cain  knew  nothing  about  the  outside  world,  and 
only  imagined  that  there  might  be  in  it  human  beings  like  himself. 
'  To  the  lawless,  vindictive  Cain,  nothing  would  be  more  natural 
than  the  thought  that,  somewhere  in  the  unknown  waste,  there  might 
be  beings  like  himself,  who  might  be  as  malignant  to  himself  as  he 
had  been  to  his  slain  brother.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  thinks  we  need  not  suppose  Cain,  Abel, 
and  Seth,  to  have  been  the  only  sons  of  Adam.  '  Indeed,  from 
Gen.  v.  4,  "  And  he  begat  sons  and  daughters,"  we  infer  that  there 
were  others.  Cain,  Abel,  and  Seth  are  mentioned  for  obvious 
reasons :  Abel  for  his  piety  and  his  early  death  ;  Cain  for  his  wicked- 
ness, and  the  worldly  wisdom  of  his  posterity ;  Seth  because  he  was 
the  ancestor  of  the  promised  seed.  There  may,  then,  in  130  years, 
have  grown  up  a  very  considerable  number  of  children  and  grand- 
children to  Adam  and  Eve.  An  Eastern  tradition  assigns  to  them 
no  less  than  thirty-three  sons  and  twenty-seven  daughters.' 

Dr.  Geikie  imagines  the  '  expulsion  from  Eden  to  have  been  an 
event  so  distant,  that  children  born  to  Adam,  or  perhaps  even  to  his 
children,  had  grown  into  manhood,  and  a  community  had  gradually 
been  formed.  A  band  from  this  fled  with  the  banished  one  to  Nod, 
the  land  of  exile,  and  there  the  insecurity  of  their  position  led  to  the 
first  gathering  into  town  life.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  gives  two  opinions.  Some  '  say  that  Adam's 
creation  was  not  identical  with  Gen.  i.  27,  but  was  that  of  the  highest 
type  of  the  human  race,  and  had  been  preceded  by  the  production  of 
inferior  races,  of  whose  existence  there  are  wide-spread  proofs.  But 
others,  with  more  probability,  think  that  Cain's  was  a  vain  appre- 
hension. How  could  he  know  that  Adam  and  his  family  were  the 
sole  inhabitants  of  the  earth  ?  Naturally  he  expected  to  find  farther 
on  what  he  had  left  behind ;  a  man  and  woman  with  stalwart  sons ; 
and  that  these,  regarding  him  as  an  interloper  come  to  rob  them,  and 
seeing  in  his  ways  proofs  of  guilt,  would  at  once  attack  and  slay  him.' 


SOWS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN.     371 
Sons  of  God  and  Daughters  of  Men. 

GENESIS  vi.  i,  2  :  'And  it  came  to  pass,  when  men  began  to  multiply  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  and  daughters  were  born  unto  them,  that  the  sons  of  God  saw 
the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair  ;  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all  which 
they  chose.' 

Difficulty. —  The  distinction  between  i  sons  of  God'  and  '"daughters 
of  men '  is  only  found  in  this  connection^  so  we  are  left  to  guess  what 
can  be  meant  by  these  terms. 

Explanation. — No  certainty  can  be  attained  on  this  subject, 
but  a  reasonable  solution  of  the  difficulty  may  be  suggested.  There 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  ground  for  the  notion  that  the  '  sons  of 
God'  were  'angels,'  or  beings  from  other  worlds.  Poetry  has 
imagined  the  love  of  angels  for  the  fair  daughters  of  earth,  as  in 
Thomas  Moore's  '  Loves  of  the  Angels.'  And  legends  have  gathered 
round  the  early  records,  some  of  which  have  been  preserved  to  our 
time  in  the  *  Book  of  Enoch,'  which  was  probably  written  many  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ.  A  portion  of  one  legend  may  be  given  : 
'  It  happened  after  the  sons  of  men  had  multiplied  in  those  days  that 
daughters  were  born  to  them,  elegant  and  beautiful.  And  when  the 
angels  (the  sons  of  heaven)  beheld  them,  they  became  enamoured  of 
them,  saying  to  each  other,  "  Come,  let  us  select  for  ourselves  wives 
from  the  progeny  of  men."  .  .  .  Then  their  leader,  Samyaza,  said 
to  them,  "  I  fear  that  you  may  perhaps  be  indisposed  to  the  per- 
formance of  this  enterprise,  and  that  I  alone  shall  suffer  for  so 
grievous  a  crime."  But  they  answered  him,  and  said :  "  We  all 
swear,  and  bind  ourselves  by  mutual  execrations,  that  we  will  not 
change  our  intention,  but  execute  our  projected  undertaking."  Then 
they  all  swore  together,  and  bound  themselves  by  mutual  execrations. 
Their  whole  number  was  two  hundred,  who  descended  upon  Ardis, 
which  is  the  top  of  Mount  Armon  (query  Hermon).  .  .  .  These 
were  the  names  of  their  chiefs  :  Samyaza  was  their  leader ;  Uraka- 
barameel,  Akibeel,  Tamiel,  Ramnel,  Danel,  Azkeel,  Sarakuyal,  Asael, 
Armers,  Batraal,  Anane,  Zavebe,  Samsaveel,  Ertael,  Zurel,  Yomyael,. 
Arazyal.  These  were  the  prefects  of  the  two  hundred  angels,  and 
the  remainder  were  all  with  them.  Then  they  took  wives,  each 
choosing  for  himself  .  .  .  teaching  them  sorcery,  incantations,  and 
the  dividing  of  roots  and  trees.  .  .  .  And  the  women  brought  forth 
giants.  .  .  .  These  devoured  all  which  the  labour  of  men  produced, 
until  it  became  impossible  to  feed  them,  when  they  turned  them- 
selves against  men,  in  order  to  devour  them  ;  and  began  to  injure 
birds,  beasts,  reptiles,  fishes,  to  eat  their  flesh  one  after  another,  and 
to  drink  their  blood.' 

24—2 


372     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

As  no  mention  of  angels  is  made  in  the  chapters  of  Genesis 
previous  to  the  sixth,  it  is  not  proper  to  introduce  our  later  ideas  of 
angels  in  order  to  explain  this  term  *  sons  of  God.'  It  is  better  to 
seek  in  the  earlier  legends  a  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase.  The 
reference  to  cherubim,  in  Gen.  iii.  24,  does  not  at  all  help  us. 

What  is  clear  from  the  early  records  is,  that  there  were  two  distinct 
races  on  the  earth,  and  that  in  the  Divine  idea  these  two  races  were 
to  keep  distinct  and  separate,  each  fulfilling  its  mission  on  strictly  its 
own  lines.  The  Cainite  race,  outside  the  special  covenant,  working 
out  its  destiny  in  merely  human  wisdom  and  strength ;  and  the 
Sethite  race,  within  the  special  covenant,  working  out  its  destiny  in 
the  Divine  leading  and  inspiration.  Confusion  arose  when  bodily 
passion  overmastered  the  lines  of  separation,  and  produced  a  mingled 
race,  which  was  neither  in  strictly  human,  nor  in  strictly  Divine 
leadings. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  commingling  should  be  spoken  of  as  an 
approach  of  Sethite  men  to  Cainite  women ;  but  no  hint  is  given  of 
any  approach  of  Cainite  men  to  Sethite  women.  This  may,  however, 
only  mean  that  Scripture  is  concerned  with  the  doings  of  the  Sethite 
race,  and  introduces  the  Cainites  only  so  far  as  they  are  brought  into 
direct  association  with  the  Sethites.  Sethite  women  marrying  Cainite 
men  would  be  lost  to  the  covenant  race. 

Probably  the  generally  received  ideas  on  this  subject  are  traceable 
to  the  remarks  of  Josephns,  who  says  :  'The  posterity  of  Seth  were 
perverted,  and  forsook  the  practices  of  their  forefathers,  and  did 
neither  pay  those  honours  to  God  which  were  appointed  them,  nor 
had  they  any  concern  to  do  justice  towards  men.  But  for  what  zeal 
they  had  formerly  shown  for  virtue,  they  now  showed  by  their  actions 
a  double  degree  of  wickedness,  whereby  they  made  God  to  be  their 
enemy ;  for  many  angels  of  God  accompanied  with  women,  and 
begat  sons  that  proved  unjust,  and  despisers  of  all  that  was  good,  on 
account  of  the  confidence  they  had  in  their  own  strength,  for  the 
tradition  is  that  these  men  did  what  resembled  the  acts  of  those 
whom  the  Greeks  call  giants.' 

Some  have  suggested  that  there  was  another  race  of  men  on  the 
earth  contemporary  with  the  Adamites,  whose  history  has  no  place  in 
the  Bible.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  such  a  supposition,  if  the 
distinction  between  the  Cainites  and  the  Sethites  will  meet  all  the 
requirements  of  the  case.  This  suggestion  is  presented  in  a  fourfold 
form  :  (i)  We  have  historical  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  race  of 
idolaters  alongside  of  the  Adamic  race.  (2)  The  apostasy,  which 
was  then  all  but  universal,  consisted  in  the  daughters  of  the  Adamites 


SOWS  OF  GOD  AND  DAUGHTERS  OF  MEN.     373 

forming  marriage  relationships  with  a  race  of  idolaters  already 
accursed.  (3)  The  flood  was  sent  upon  the  descendants  of  Adam, 
and  those  with  whom  they  had  contracted  marriages ;  the  other 
idolaters  are  not  to  be  held  as  swept  away  by  the  deluge.  (4)  The 
Anakim  of  the  days  of  Moses  were  the  descendants  of  the  Nephilim, 
or  giants,  of  the  time  of  Noah. 

Others  have  suggested  that  the  '  sons  of  God '  were  men  of  high 
rank,  who  married  a  number  of  wives  from  the  lower  ranks,  thus 
extending  polygamy  and  its  evils.  But  there  is  no  ground  for  such 
a  notion,  which  anticipates  the  later  formal  divisions  of  society. 

Dr.  Porter  says  :  *  The  difficulties  disappear  when  we  interpret  the 
narrative  in  its  natural  connection,  keeping  clearly  before  us  the 
scope  of  the  context.  The  scope  may  be  embodied  in  the  following 
propositions :  (i)  The  human  family  is  traced  through  two  distinct 
lines  ;  the  line  of  the  outcast  Cain,  and  that  of  the  elect  Seth.  (2) 
Seth  was  recognised  by  his  parents  as  a  special  gift  from  God  (Gen. 
iv.  25) ;  and,  according  to  Oriental  idiom,  he  was  therefore  a  son  of 
God.  Cain,  on  the  other  hand,  "  went  out  from  the  presence  of  God  " 
(Gen.  iv.  1 6).  His  aspirations  were  all  human  ;  and,  according  to 
the  same  idiom,  he  was  a  son  of  man.  (3)  In  the  line  of  Seth  the 
worship  of  God  was  kept  up.  His  fatherhood ',  so  to  speak,  was 
acknowledged  (Gen.  iv.  26 ;  v.  24).  In  the  line  of  Cain,  God's 
paternal  care  and  government  appear  to  have  been  almost  wholly 
ignored.' 

Canaanites  not  Native  Races  of  Palestine. 

EXODUS  iii.  8  :  '  Unto  the  place  of  the  Canaanite,  and  the  Hittite,  and  the 
Amorite,  and  the  Perizzite,  and  the  Hivite,  and  the  Jebusite.' 

Question. — How  came  these  petty  kingdoms  to  be  established  in 
Palestine  ? 

Answer. — It  is  important  to  observe  that  they  had  no  natural 
rights  in  the  land,  and  were  conquerors  holding  possession  on  condi- 
tion of  good  behaviour,  just  as  truly  as  the  Israelites  were  in  later 
times.  There  is  consequently  no  real  difference  between  the 
Canaanites  being  subjugated  and  turned  out  by  the  Israelites  when 
'  the  cup  of  their  iniquity  was  full,'  and  the  Israelites  being  subju- 
gated and  turned  out  by  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians  when  '  the 
cup  of  their  iniquity  was  full.' 

So  far  as  we  can  gather,  the  aborigines  of  Palestine  are  represented 
by  the  Anakim,  Rephaim,  Emim,  Horites,  etc.,  of  whom  relics  were 
left  in  the  land. 

Ewald  gives  careful  attention  to  this  subject :  *  The  first  inquiry 


374      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

naturally  refers  to  the  aborigines,  tribes  of  whose  immigration  the 
later  inhabitants  retained  neither  proof  nor  even  the  faintest  recollec- 
tion. Before  their  subjugation  or  expulsion  by  other  victorious 
invaders,  these  aborigines  may  have  passed  through  many  stages  of 
fortune,  forgotten  as  layer  after  layer  of  population  flowed  over  this 
lowest  and  broadest  stratum.  Total  expulsion,  however,  can  rarely 
have  befallen  the  original  inhabitants  upon  a  strip  of  coast  like  Pales- 
tine, the  exit  from  whence  was  not  easy  to  a  settled  population, 
whether  on  account  of  the  great  attractions  of  its  soil,  or  because  its 
boundaries  were  formed  by  deserts,  seas,  the  easily-defended  fords  of 
the  Jordan,  and  the  mountain  glens  of  the  north.  We  are,  therefore, 
justified  in  assuming  that  many  relics  of  the  primitive  inhabitants 
must  have  been  spared.  For  us,  indeed,  all  such  traces  are  almost 
erased,  because  the  Israelitish  invasion  belonged  to  a  later  time, 
when  the  earlier  strata  of  population  were  so  intermixed  that  it  was 
no  longer  easy  always  to  discriminate  the  earlier  and  the  later  inhabi- 
tants. 

1  That  in  the  very  earliest  age,  long  before  the  ancient  migrations 
into  Egypt  (that  is,  long  before  the  time  of  the  Hyksos),  a  more 
homogeneous  group  of  nations  established  themselves  in  this  land  is 
not  only  probable  from  the  general  relations  among  nations,  but  to 
be  inferred  also  from  more  definite  indications.  A  change  in  the 
name  of  a  country,  such  as  Seir,  Edom,  or  Esau,  itself  points  to  the 
successive  rule  of  three  distinct  nations,  whose  chronological  sequence 
we  can  in  this  case  distinguish  with  certainty.  What  these  names 
prove  to  have  happened  to  the  land  on  the  south-eastern  border  of 
the  Holy  Land,  and  is  more  easy  of  demonstration  in  that  instance, 
is  evidently  true  of  other  cases  occurring  within  the  land  itself. 
Further,  all  the  nations  which  were  settled  in  the  land  in  historical 
times,  some  of  which  are  known  even  from  Biblical  testimony  to 
have  come  in  from  foreign  parts,  though  differing  widely  in  other 
respects,  possessed  a  Semitic  language,  of  which,  amid  considerable 
dialectic  varieties,  the  fundamental  elements  were  closely  related. 
Now  this  is  not  conceivable,  unless  one  original  nation,  possessing  a 
distinctly-marked  character,  had  lived  there,  perhaps  for  a  thousand 
years  before  the  immigration  of  others,  to  whose  language  after- 
comers  had  more  or  less  to  conform.  This  original  nation,  more- 
over, doubtless  had  its  peculiar  ideas,  religious  ceremonies,  and 
customs,  which  more  or  less  powerfully  influenced  subsequent  immi- 
grants ;  as  the  worship  of  the  horned  Astarte  is  known  to  have 
existed  here  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  quite  independently  of  the 
later  Phoenicians.'  (See  Ashteroth  Karnaim,  Gen.  xiv.  5.) 


CANAANITES  NOT  NATIVES  OF  PALESTINE.  375 

At  the  time  of  the  Israelite  occupation  these  aborigines  had  for 
many  centuries  been  so  completely  subjugated,  dispersed,  and  ground 
down,  that  but  few  remains  of  them  were  still  visible.  But  then  the 
immigrants  were  so  various,  so  divided,  and  in  some  points  even  so 
weak,  that  it  must  have  been  very  difficult  to  comprise  such 
numerous  and  disconnected  nations  under  one  fitting  appellation. 
The  Israelites  called  them  Canaanites,  Amorites,  or  otherwise, 
according  as  one  or  other  of  them  seemed  the  more  important  at 
the  time,  or  they  preferred  to  name  several  together.  When  a  nation 
had  been  long  resident  in  the  land,  no  one  thought  of  investigating 
the  antiquity  of  its  settlement  there.  So  much  the  more  remarkable 
is  it  that  some  few  tribes  are  nevertheless  described  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  'ancient  inhabitants  of  the  land.'  This  declaration  is  the 
more  impartial  and  weighty  because  quite  incidental.  The  nations 
thus  described  are  very  small  and  scattered  tribes,  but  on  this 
account  the  more  likely  to  be  the  remains  of  the  aboriginal  inhabi- 
tants. 

In  the  northern  and  more  fruitful  portions  of  the  land,  on  this  side 
Jordan,  the  aborigines  must  have  been  very  early  completely  sub- 
jugated by  the  Canaanites,  and  blended  with  them,  as  not  even  a 
distant  allusion  to  them  is  anywhere  to  be  found.  The  case  is 
different  with  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan,  especially  towards  the 
south.  Here  we  come  upon  the  traces  of  a  people,  strangers  alike 
to  the  Hebrews  and  their  cognate  tribes,  and  to  the  Canaanites,  who 
maintained  some  degree  of  independence  until  after  the  Mosaic  age 
— the  Horites  (dwellers  in  caves,  Troglodytes)  in  the  cavernous  land 
of  Edom,  or  Seir. 

At  the  time  of  the  Israelitish  conquest,  as  we  learn  from  some  per- 
fectly reliable  accounts,  there  still  existed  many  remains  of  the 
aborigines  scattered  through  the  land.  They  were  then  ordinarily 
designated  by  a  name  which  suggests  very  different  ideas — Rephaim 
or  giants.  A  part  of  the  population,  which  from  its  locality  can 
hardly  be  anything  else  than  the  Rephaim,  is  very  curiously  also 
called  by  a  perfectly  distinct  name — Amorites.  Again,  in  the  south- 
west of  the  land  we  find  other  traces  of  aborigines ;  possibly  the 
Amalekites  must  be  classed  among  them.  And  there  was  a  district 
about  Joppa,  called  Geshur,  which  was  occupied  by  the  Avvites,  or 
Avvim.  And  in  David's  reign  there  was  another  small  kingdom  of 
the  same  name,  Geshur,  at  the  very  opposite  point,  on  the  north-east, 
on  the  other  side  Jordan,  and  distinguished  by  the  epithet  Aramczan, 
as  being  surrounded  by  tribes  speaking  Aramaic.  It  is  clear  from 
all  these  signs  that  there  was  here  a  primitive  people  which  once 


376      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

extended  over  the  whole  land  of  the  Jordan  to  the  left,  and  to  the 
Euphrates  on  the  right,  and  to  the  Red  Sea  on  the  south ;  and  that, 
as  in  many  districts  it  was  still  disputing  dominion  with  the  Canaan- 
ites,  it  was  completely  subjugated  only  by  the  fresh  incursion  of  the 
Hebrews  under  Moses.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  of 
Semitic  origin. 

Professor  Wilkins  names  the  aboriginal  tribes  the  Rephaim,  the 
Zanzummim,  the  Emim,  and  the  Anakim. 


Preservation  of  Species  in  the  Ark. 

GENESIS  vi.  19  :  'And  of  every  living  thing  of  all  flesh,  two  of  every  sort  shalt 
thou  bring  into  the  ark,  to  keep  them  alive  with  thee  :  they  shall  be  male  and 
female.' 

Difficulty. — No  single  erection  could  possibly  contain  specimens  of 
all  the  kinds  of  creatures  now  upon  the  earth. 

Explanation.— If  the  Flood  was  strictly  local,  though  vastly 
extensive,  it  is  evident  that  only  the  animals  inhabiting  the  particular 
region  affected  would  need  to  be  preserved,  and  these  would  be 
within  reasonable  limitations.  Some  living  creatures  would  exist 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  Flood,  some  would  migrate  for  the  time  into 
safe  districts,  and  some  would  not  be  permanently  injured  by  pro- 
longed submersion.  And  it  may  also  be  recognised  that  the  primary 
forms  were  comparatively  few,  the  existing  varieties  being  largely  the 
result  of  developments  under  differing  conditions  of  climate,  food, 
etc. 

Dr.  Geikie  summarizes  the  difficulties  of  assuming  that  representa- 
tives of  all  kinds  of  creatures  were  found  in  Noah's  Ark :  '  Nor  is  it 
possible  to  conceive  of  an  assemblage  of  all  the  living  creatures  of 
the  different  regions  of  the  earth  at  any  one  spot.  The  unique  fauna 
of  Australia — survivors  of  a  former  geological  age — certainly  could 
neither  have  reached  the  Ark  nor  regained  their  home  after  leaving 
it ;  for  they  are  separated  from  the  nearest  continuous  land  by  vast 
breadths  of  ocean.  The  Polar  bear  surely  could  not  survive  a 
journey  from  his  native  icebergs  to  the  sultry  plains  of  Mesopotamia ; 
nor  could  the  animals  of  South  America  have  reached  them  except 
by  travelling  the  whole  length,  northwards,  of  North  America,  and 
then,  after  miraculously  crossing  Behring's  Straits,  having  pressed 
westwards  across  the  whole  breadth  of  Asia — a  continent  larger  than 
the  moon.  That  even  a  deer  should  accomplish  such  a  pedestrian 
teat  is  inconceivable,  but  how  could  a  sloth  have  done  it — a  creature 
which  lives  in  trees,  never,  if  possible,  descending  to  the  ground,  and 


PRESERVATION  OF  SPECIES  IN  THE  ARK.     377 

able  to  advance  on  it  only  by  the  slowest  and  most  painful  motions  ? 
Or  how  could  tropical  creatures  find  supplies  of  food  in  passing 
through  such  a  variety  of  climates,  and  over  vast  spaces  of  hideous 
desert  ?  Still  more,  how  could  any  vessel,  however  large,  have  held 
pairs  and  sevens  of  all  the  creatures  on  earth,  with  food  for  a  year, 
and  how  could  the  whole  family  of  Noah  have  attended  to  them  ? 
There  are  at  least  2,000  mammals,  more  than  7,000  kinds  of  birds, 
from  the  gigantic  ostrich  to  the  humming-bird,  and  over  1,500  kinds 
of  amphibious  animals  and  reptiles,  not  to  speak  of  120,000  kinds  of 
insects,  and  an  unknown  multitude  of  varieties  of  infusoria.  Nor 
does  this  include  the  many  thousand  kinds  of  mollusca,  radiata,  and 
fish.  Even  if  the  Ark,  as  has  been  supposed  by  one  writer,  was  of 
80,000  tons  burden,  such  a  freightage  needs  only  be  mentioned  to 
make  it  be  felt  impossible.  Look  which  way  we  like,  gigantic  diffi- 
culties meet  us.  Thus,  Hugh  Miller  has  noticed  that  it  would  have 
required  a  continuous  miracle  to  keep  alive  the  fish  for  whom  the 
Deluge  water  was  unsuitable,  while  even  spawn  would  perish  if  kept 
unhatched  for  a  whole  year,  as  that  of  many  fish  must  have  been. 
Nor  would  the  vegetable  world  have  fared  better  than  the  animal, 
for  of  the  100,000  known  species  of  plants,  very  few  would  survive 
a  year's  submersion.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  remarks  that  'the  terms  are  conditioned  by 
the  usual  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  the  language  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  by  the  internal  necessities  of  the  event  itself.  Thus  the 
animals  in  the  Ark  could  not  have  been  more  in  number  than  four 
men  and  four  women  could  attend  to.  Next,  the  .terms  exclude  the 
carnivora.  Not  only  was  there  no  supply  of  animals  taken  on  board 
to  feed  them,  but  half-tamed  as  they  would  have  been  by  a  year's 
sojourn  in  the  Ark,  they  would  have  remained  in  Noah's  neighbour- 
hood, and  very  soon  have  destroyed  all  the  cattle  which  had  been 
saved,  especially  as  far  and  wide  no  other  living  creatures  would  have 
existed  for  their  food/ 

The  distinction  made  between  *  clean '  and  *  unclean  '  suggests  the 
two  classes  of  what  may  be  called  domestic  creatures — those  which 
serve  man  for  food,  and  those  which  serve  man  for  labour ;  but  the 
raven,  as  a  flesh-eating  bird,  suggests  a  wider  selection  than  from  the 
domestic  circle  only.  Van  Lennep,  however,  speaks  of  the  raven,  or 
crow,  as  being  closely  related  to  the  dwellings  of  men ;  and  this  bird 
may  therefore  have  come  into  the  class  of  domestic  animals  with 
which  Noah  was  familiar.  It  is  the  only  reference  that  can  possibly 
suggest  the  preservation  of  what  we  call  the  wild  animals.  If  we 
understand  that  Noah  preserved  in  the  Ark  the  defenceless  animals 


3?8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

belonging  to  the  domestic  circle,  we  can  abundantly  fill  his  Ark, 
especially  if  food  for  so  long  a  time  as  twelve  months  be  duly  taken 
into  account. 

Inglis  observes  that  'the  carrying  capabilities  of  the  Ark  have 
been  over-estimated  from  forgetting  that  by  far  the  greater  portion  of 
it  was  occupied  with  fodder  and  provisions.  But  to  contain  the 
immense  number  of  different  species  of  animals,  the  progenitors  of 
those  scattered  from  the  north  to  the  south  pole,  numbering  many 
thousands,  with  a  year's  provisions,  would  have  required  a  fleet  of 
arks.  Besides,  from  Gen.  ix.  10  we  learn  that  there  were  beasts  on 
the  earth  after  the  Flood  which  had  not  come  out  of  the  Ark  :  "  From 
all  that  go  out  of  the  Ark  to  every  beast  of  the  earth." ' 

On  this  latter  sentence  the  Speaker's  Commentary  says  :  '  From  it 
we  can  hardly  fail  to  infer  that  the  destruction  of  the  lower  animals 
was  confined  to  a  certain  district,  and  not  general  throughout  the  earth.' 
The  distinct  species  found  in  any  one  particular  district  would  be 
strictly  limited  in  number. 


The  Syrian  Origin  of  the  Israelites. 

DEUTERONOMY  xxvi.  5  (Rev.  Ver.}  :  'And  thou  shalt  answer  and  say  before 
the  Lord  thy  God,  A  Syrian  ready  to  perish  was  my  father,  and  he  went  down 
into  Egypt,  and  sojourned  there,  few  in  number ;  and  he  became  there  a  nation, 
great,  mighty,  and  populous.' 

Difficulty. — The  term  Syrian  must  surely  be  used  here  in  a  very 
comprehensive  sense. 

Explanation. — The  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  gives  for 
'Syrian,'  'Aramaean';  and  for  'ready  to  perish,'  'wandering,'  or 
'lost.' 

The  reference  is  not  to  Abraham,  the  first  father  of  the  race,  but  to 
Jacob,  who  was  looked  upon  as  the  second  father. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  translates  the  Hebrew  words,  '  an  Aramaean 
perishing,'  and  thinks  the  reference  is  to  Jacob,  who  served  in  danger 
and  distress  with  Laban  the  Syrian  (Gen.  xxv.  20)  for  twenty  years, 
and  whose  wives  and  children  were  from  Padan-Aram  (Gen.  xxviii.  5  ; 
xxxi.  38-42).  Israel  may  fairly  be  called  an  Aramaean  because  of  his 
long  sojourn  there ;  and  the  sons  of  Israel  were  actually  Syrian- 
born. 

The  term  Syrian,  or  Aramaean,  was  an  extensive  one,  and  it  might 
have  been  fairly  used  even  of  Abraham.  We  distinguish  between 
Syria  and  Assyria,  but  the  empire  of  Assyria  was  founded  later,  and 
includes  portions  of  the  Syrian  territory. 


THE  SYRIAN  ORIGIN  OF  THE  ISRAELITES.     379 

Aram,  meaning  'Highlander,'  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Shem,  who, 
by  his  descendants,  colonised  the  fertile  country  north  of  Babylonia, 
called  Aram-Naharaim,  or  'Aram  between  the  two  rivers,'  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  the  country  being  thence  denominated 
Mesopotamia  by  the  Greeks,  and  sometimes  by  the  Hebrews  Padan- 
Aram,  *  the  level  country  of  Aram,'  or  the  *  upland  plain.'  In 
Scripture  Aram  is  generally  rendered  Syria,  that  is  Syria  east  of 
Lebanon.  The  Grecian  name  Syria  is  of  doubtful  origin,  but  is 
possibly  connected  with  the  root  tsur,  'rock,'  from  which  also  comes 
Tyre.  The  'highland'  is  part  of  the  lofty  and  extensive  chain  of 
mountains  known  as  Lebanon. 

Assyria  is  to  be  distinguished  from  Syria,  whose  southern  boun-. 
dary  was  the  land  of  Israel,  and  whose  capital  was  Damascus. 
Assyria  was  the  country  east  of  the  Tigris,  bounded  on  the  north  by 
Armenia,  east  by  Media,  and  south  by  Susiana  and  Chaldsea. 

It  would  be  therefore  correct  to  speak  of  the  Chaldaean  origin  of 
Abraham,  and  the  Syrian  origin  of  Jacob's  family.  Jacob  was  born 
in  Palestine,  but  his  independent  start,  as  the  head  of  a  family,  was 
made  from  Syria  (Padan-Aram). 

It  need  only  further  be  observed  that,  in  a  comprehensive  way, 
even  Palestine  may  be  included  in  the  general  term  Syria. 

Weeds  and  Thorns  following  on  Man's  Culture. 

GENESIS  iii.  18  :  'Thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee.' 

Question. —  Can  we  trace  the  natural  way  in  which  this  Divine 
curse  has  been,  and  is  constantly  being,  fulfilled  ? 

Answer. — Nature,  left  alone,  preserves  a  perfect  balance.  If 
anything  tends  to  grow  or  develop  unduly,  the  restraining  forces  at 
once  correspondingly  increase.  But  man's  toil  interferes  with  Nature's 
arrangements,  and  disturbs  the  natural  balance.  The  culture  which 
develops  the  corn,  develops  the  weeds  which  grow  among  the 
corn.  The  folly  that  shoots  the  birds,  gives  unchecked  chance  to 
the  worm  and  caterpillar  on  which  they  feed.  Man's  self-will  is  a 
disturbance  of  the  Divine  order;  but  it  may  be  but  a  material 
disability,  which  is  permitted  as  working  towards  a  higher  moral 
good.  Man  is  to  gain  virtue  out  of  a  struggle  with  the  universe, 
which  his  self-will  has  disturbed. 

Hugh  Macmillan  illustrates  this  point  with  singular  felicity.  '  It  is 
a  remarkable  circumstance  that  whenever  man  cultivates  Nature,  and 
then  abandons  her  to  her  own  unaided  energies,  the  result  is  far 
worse  than  if  he  had  never  attempted  to  improve  her  at  all.  There 


380      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

are  no  such  thorns  found  in  a  state  of  Nature  as  those  produced  by 
the  ground  which  man  has  once  tilled,  but  has  now  deserted.  In  the 
waste  clearings  amid  the  fern  brakes  of  New  Zealand,  and  in  the 
primeval  forests  of  Canada,  thorns  may  now  be  seen  which  were 
unknown  there  before.  The  nettle  and  the  thistle  follow  man 
wherever  he  goes,  and  remain  as  perpetual  witnesses  of  his  presence, 
even  though  he  departs;  and  around  the  cold  hearthstone  of  the 
ruined  shieling  on  the  Highland  moor,  and  on  the  threshold  of  the 
crumbling  log-hut  in  the  Australian  bush,  these  social  plants  may  be 
seen  growing,  forming  a  singular  contrast  to  the  vegetation  around 
them. 

'  No  country  in  the  world,  now  that  it  has  been  so  long  left  out  of 
cultivation,  has  such  a  variety  and  abundance  of  thorny  plants  as  the 
once  favoured  heritage  of  God's  people,  the  land  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey.  Travellers  call  the  Holy  Land  "  the  land  of  thorns." 
Giant  thistles,  growing  to  the  height  of  a  man  on  horseback,  frequently 
spread  over  regions  once  rich  and  fruitful,  as  they  do  on  the  pampas 
of  South  America ;  and  many  of  the  most  interesting  historic  spots 
and  ruins  are  rendered  almost  inaccessible  by  thickets  of  fiercely- 
armed  buck-thorns.  Entire  fields  are  covered  with  the  troublesome 
creeping  stems  of  the  spinous  Orionis,  or  rest-harrow,  while  the  bare 
hillsides  are  studded  with  the  dangerous  capsules  of  the  Paliurus 
and  Tribulus.  Roses  of  the  most  prickly  kinds  abound  on  the  lower 
slopes  of  Hermon,  while  the  sub-tropical  valleys  of  Judaea  are  choked 
up  in  many  places  by  the  thorny  Lycium^  whose  lilac  flowers  and 
scarlet  fruit  cannot  be  plucked,  owing  to  erect  branches  armed  at  all 
points  with  spines.  The  feathery  tree  of  the  Zizyphus  spina  Christi^ 
or  Christ's  thorn,  that  fringe  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  and  flourish  on 
the  marshy  borders  of  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  are  beautiful  to  look 
at,  but  terrible  to  handle,  concealing  as  they  do  under  each  of  the 
small  delicately  formed  leaves  of  a  brilliant  green,  a  thorn  curved  like 
a  fish-hook,  which  grasps  and  tears  everything  that  touches  it.  Dr. 
Tristram  mentions  that,  in  passing  through  thorny  thickets  near 
Jericho,  the  clothes  of  his  whole  party  were  torn  to  rags.  ...  In 
short,  thorny  plants,  the  evidences  of  a  degenerate  flora,  and  of 
deteriorated  physical  conditions,  now  form  the  most  conspicuous 
vegetation  of  Palestine,  and  supply  abundant  mournful  proof  of  the 
literal  fulfilment  of  prophecy :  "  Upon  the  land  of  my  people  shall 
come  up  thorns  and  briars ;  yea,  upon  all  the  houses  of  joy  in  the 
joyous  city." ' 

Lange  explains  that  '  in  their  ground  type,  thorns  and  thistles 
must  have  existed  before ;  but  it  is  now  the  tendency  of  Nature  to 


MINING  ALLUSIONS  IN  JOB.  381 

favour  the  ignoble  forms  rather  than  the  noble,  the  lower  rather  than 
the  higher,  the  weed  rather  than  the  herb.  In  place  of  the  ennobling 
tendency  which  would  produce  a  fruit-tree  or  a  rose-bush  out  of  a 
thorn-shrub,  or  that  wonderful  flower  of  the  cactus  out  of  the  thistle, 
there  comes  in  a  tendency  to  wildness  or  degeneracy  which  trans- 
forms the  herb  into  a  weed.  The  sickliness  of  nature  :  a  falling  back 
upon  its  subordinate  stages,  as  a  punishment  of  man  for  his  contra- 
natural  falling  back  into  a  demoniacal,  bestial  behaviour.  Here  now, 
along  with  the  thorns  and  thistles,  there  is,  at  the  same  time,  the 
positive  opposition  of  nature  to  man.  In  place  of  the  garden-culture, 
there  is  introduced  not  agriculture  simply,  but  an  agriculture  which 
is.  at  the  same  time,  a  strife  with  a  resisting  nature,  and  in  place  of 
the  fruit  of  paradise,  is  man  now  directed  to  the  fruit  of  thj  field.' 


Mining  Allusions  in  Job. 

JOB  xxviii.  i,  2  (Rev.  Ver.)  :  '  Surely  there  is  a  mine  for  silver,  and  a  place  for 
gold  which  they  refine.  Iron  is  taken  out  of  the  earth '  (or  dust)  '  and  brass  is 
molten  out  of  the  stone.' 

Question. — Does  not  such  knowledge  of  mining  operations  prove 
the  Solomo?iic  date  of  the  Book  of  Job  ? 

Answer. — Though  it  is  now  known  that  mines  were  worked  in 
Sinai  at  least  a  thousand  years  before  the  time  assigned  to  Job,  there 
were  gold-mines  in  Egypt,  and  silver  was  brought  from  the  far  East  by 
Phoenician  merchants,  yet  it  seems  inconceivable  that  an  Arab  sheikh, 
such  as  we  assume  Job  to  have  been,  could  have  been  so  intimately 
acquainted  with  mining  matters  as  to  have  written  in  such  detail, 
and  with  such  precision,  about  them.  Too  much  cannot,  indeed, 
be  made  of  this  argument ;  it  is  only  fair  to  infer  that  the  Solomonic 
associations  with  mining  and  metals  amply  supply  the  materials  found 
in  this  remarkable  chapter  of  Job.  It  seems  more  to  the  point  to 
show  that  mining  was  early  carried  on  in  the  districts  of  the  Hauran, 
and  in  Lebanon,  and  that  Solomon  was  in  a  very  special  sense  inter- 
ested in  the  useful  and  the  precious  metals. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  very  cautiously  deals  with  this  question  : 
*  A  great  chieftain,  whose  camels  were  doubtless  employed  in  trans- 
porting the  productions  of  various  regions,  would  have  had  oppor- 
tunities such  as  few  Israelites,  save  in  the  age  of  Solomon,  could  have 
enjoyed  of  exploring  the  excavations,  and  watching  the  ingenious 
processes  by  which  the  metals  were  prepared  for  the  use  of  man. 
The  local  colouring  altogether  belongs  to  Idumaea,  the  Peninsula  of 
Arabia,  or  to  Egypt,  certainly  not  to  Palestine.' 


382      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

As  the  principal  metals  are  mentioned  in  the  early  Scriptures,  it  is 
certain  that  men  must  have,  early  in  the  human  history,  found  out 
how  to  trace  them,  and  how  to  separate  them  from  surrounding  earth 
by  such  processes  as  washing  and  burning.  Gold  is  mentioned  in 
Gen.  ii.  1 1,  12,  silver  in  Gen.  xiii.  2,  iron  in  Gen.  iv.  22,  copper  in  Gen. 
iv.  22 — this  metal,  when  hardened  by  some  alloy,  is  known  as  brass 
— lead  in  Exod.  xv.  10.  'The  Hebrews  were  acquainted  with  the 
principal  metals,  but  they  drew  their  supplies  mainly  from  other 
countries,  specially  by  means  of  Phoenician  commerce.  The  mineral 
wealth  of  Syria  and  Palestine  seems  to  have  been  less  developed  than 
that  of  districts  so  near  as  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula.' 

Delitzsch  points  out  that  the  author's  information  on  mining  sub- 
jects could  have  been  equally  well  obtained  through  knowledge  of 
Egypt  and  Sinai,  or  through  knowledge  of  the  Hauran  district,  which 
is  probably  the  place  of  Job's  residence.  Delitzsch  has  collected  so 
much  interesting  information  that  much  of  his  note  may  be  given  to 
our  readers  :  '  The  ruins  of  mines  found  show  that  the  Sinaitic  Penin- 
sula has  been  worked  as  a  mining  district  from  the  earliest  times. 
The  first  of  these  mining  districts  is  the  Wady  Nasb,  where  Lepsius 
found  traces  of  old  smelting-places,  and  where  also  Graul  and  his 
companions,  having  their  attention  drawn  to  it  by  Wilkinson's  work, 
searched  for  the  remains  of  a  mine,  and  found  at  least  traces  of 
copper  slag,  but  could  see  nothing  more.  A  second  mining  district 
is  denoted  by  the  ruins  of  a  temple  of  Hathor,  on  the  steep  terrace 
of  the  rising  ground  Sarbut-el-chadim,  which  stretches  out  into  a 
spacious  valley.  This  field  of  ruins,  with  its  many  lofty  columns 
within  the  still  recognisable  area  of  a  temple  and  round  about  it, 
gives  the  impression  of  a  large  burying-ground.  .  .  .  Tischendorf 
describes  the  wild  terrific-looking  copper  rocks  that  lay  around  in 
their  varied  shades,  now  light,  now  dark.  That  these  copper  rocks 
were  worked  in  ancient  days  is  proved  by  the  large  black  heaps  of 
slag  which  Lepsius  discovered  to  the  east  and  west  of  the  temple. 
The  remains  of  a  mine  discovered  by  J.  Wilson  at  the  eastern  end  of 
the  north  side  of  the  Wadi  Mucatteb  also  belongs  to  this  copper 
country ;  they  lie  near  the  road,  but  in  back  gorges ;  there  is  a  very 
high  wall  or  rock  of  granite  or  porphyry,  which  is  penetrated  by  dark 
seams  of  metal  which  have  been  worked  out  from  above  downwards, 
thus  forming  artificial  caverns,  pits,  and  shafts ;  and  it  may  be  in- 
ferred that  the  yield  of  ore  was  very  abundant,  and,  from  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  manner  of  working,  that  it  is  of  very  great  antiquity. 
This  art  of  mining  thus  laid  open,  as  Ritter  says,  furnishes  the  most 


MINING  ALLUSIONS  IN  JOB.  383 

mportant  explanation  of  Job's  remarkable   description  of  mining 
operations. 

'As  to  Egypt  itself,  it  has  but  few  places  where  iron  ore  was 
obtained,  and  it  was  not  very  plentiful,  as  iron  occurs  much  more 
'arely  than  bronze  on  the  tombs,  although  Wilkinson  has  observed 
mportant  copper-mines  almost  as  extensive  as  the  copper  country  of 
Sinai ;  we  only,  however,  possess  more  exact  information  concerning 
:he  gold-mines  on  the  borders  of  Upper  Egypt.  Diodorus  gives  a 
ninute  description  of  them,  from  which  it  is  evident  that  mining  in 
chose  days  was  much  the  same  as  it  was  with  us  about  a  hundred 
years  ago ;  we  recognise  in  it  the  day  and  night  relays,  the  structure 
of  shafts,  the  crushing  and  washing  apparatus,  and  the  smelting- 
place. 

*  But  if  the  scene  of  the  Book  of  Job  is  to  be  sought  in  Idumsea 
proper  (GeMt),  or  in  Hauran,  there  were  certainly  mines  that  were 
nearer  than  the  Egyptian.  In  Phunon,  between  Petra  and  Zoar,  there 
were  pits  from  which  copper  was  obtained  even  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
as  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  of  Moses  having  erected  a  brazen 
serpent  there.  But  Edrisi  also  knew  of  gold  and  silver  mines  in  the 
mountains  of  Edom,  and  there  were  also  such  mines  in  Arabia 
Petraea.  Traces  of  former  copper-mines  are  still  found  on  the 
Lebanon ;  Edrisi  was  acquainted  with  the  existence  of  a  rich 
iron-mine  near  Beirut ;  and,  even  in  the  present  day,  the  Jews 
who  dwell  in  Deir-el-Kamar^  on  the  Lebanon,  work  the  iron  on 
leases,  and  especially  forge  horse-shoes  from  it,  which  are  sent  all 
over  Palestine. 

'  The  poet  of  the  Book  of  Job  might,  therefore,  have  learned  mining 
in  its  diversified  modes  of  operation  from  his  own  observation,  both 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Egypt,  which  he  had  doubtless  visited,  and  also 
in  Arabia  Petraea  and  in  the  Lebanon  districts,  so  as  to  be  able  to 
put  a  description  of  them  into  the  mouth  of  his  hero.' 

A  curious  and  interesting  discovery  was  made  in  the  mines  of 
Midian,  after  minute  explorations,  by  Mr.  Keast  Lord.  The  veins  of 
metal  had  been  worked  by  stone  tools  exclusively,  many  of  which 
Mr.  Lord  brought  away  with  him.  This  alone  would  suffice  to  prove 
how  ancient  mining  operations  are. 

Dr.  Geikie  quotes,  from  Agatharcides^  an  interesting  description 
of  the  old  life  and  toil  at  the  gold-mines.  ('  Hours  with  Bible,' 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  229,  230.) 


384      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord. 

NUMBERS  xxi.  14  :  *  Wherefore  it  is  said  in  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord.' 

Question. — Can  we  suppose  that  in  the  Mosaic  period  written  his- 
torical records  were  made  and  preserved  ?  Does  not  this  assume  too 
advanced  civilization  for  the  people  and  the  period1} 

Answer. — Nothing  whatever  is  known  about  this  book.  There 
can  only  be  suppositions  concerning  it.  There  is  no  absolute  reason 
for  thinking  the  book  was  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  events 
narrated  in  it.  The  reference  seems  to  be  made  as  a  kind  of  confir- 
mation, or  proof,  of  the  statement  made  by  the  writer,  or  possibly  by 
some  later  editor. 

There  is  other  reason  for  thinking  that  a  book  of  heroic  poems 
was  gradually  compiled,  which  might  include  Moses'  Song  at  the 
Red  Sea,  and  general  historical  reminiscences.  It  is  now  quite 
understood  that  the  art  of  writing  long  preceded  Moses,  and  the 
keeping  of  chronicles  of  great  historical  events  would  be  learned  by 
Moses  in  his  Egyptian  education.  There  is  nothing  unreasonable 
in  assuming  that  the  man  who  devoted  himself  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  nation  would  provide  for  a  systematic  record  of  historical 
events. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  says :  '  It  was  apparently  a  collection 
of  sacred  odes  commemorative  of  that  triumphal  progress  of  God's 
people  which  this  chapter  records.  From  it  is  taken  the  ensuing 
fragment  of  ancient  poetry  relating  to  the  passage  of  the  Arnon,  and 
probably  also  the  Song  of  the  Well,  and  the  Ode  on  the  Conquest  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Sihon.  The  allusion  to  this  book  cannot  supply 
any  valid  argument  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Numbers,  for 
it  may  be  quite  consistently  allowed  that  Moses  availed  himself  in 
some  cases  of  pre-existing  materials,  and  combined  in  his  narrative 
the  results  of  information  obtained  from  others.  .  .  .  Nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  believe  that  Moses  wrote  at  one  time  the  whole  of 
what  he  may  have  himself  contributed  to  this  book.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  seems  in  part  to  be  composed  out  of  memoranda,  originally 
made  at  intervals  ranging  over  thirty-eight  years.  ...  It  is  likely, 
indeed,  that  this  book,  as  others,  underwent,  after  it  left  the  hands  of 
its  composer,  a  revision,  or  perhaps  more  than  one  revision,  in  which 
here  and  there  later  elements  were  introduced.  These,  indeed,  can- 
not have  been  of  any  great  bulk,  and  some  passages  have  been 
quoted  as  instances  which  may  well  be  otherwise  explained.  .  .  . 
Critics  have  pronounced  it  incredible  that  such  a  work  as  "  the  Wars 


FOOD  OF  MAN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  FLOOD.  385 

of  the  Lord"  should  be  extant  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and  have 
alleged  further  that  the  chapter  quotes  it  as  belonging  to  bygone 
times.  But  in  the  months  which  closed  Moses'  life,  when  great 
events  succeeded  each  other  rapidly,  and  scenes  and  circumstances 
were  ever  changing,  the  songs  commemorative  of  Israel's  triumphs 
would  soon  become  historical.  Moreover,  "  the  Book  of  the  Wars 
of  the  Lord"  would  probably  commence  with  His  noble  works 
done  in  Egypt  for  the  fathers  of  those  who  vanquished  Sihon  and 
Og.' 

Food  of  Man  before  and  after  the  Flood. 

GENESIS  ix.  3,  4  :  'Every  moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  food  for  you  ;  as 
the  green  herb  have  I  given  you  all.  But  flesh  with  the  life  thereof,  which  is  the 
blood  thereof,  shall  ye  not  eat.' 

Difficulty. —  Unless  the  constitution  of  man  was  changed  after  the 
flood,  we  must  assume  that  he  ate  flesh  from  the  beginning. 

Explanation. — There  is  no  gainsaying  the  fact  that  man,  as 
now  constituted,  has  the  characteristic  teeth  of  the  flesh-eating 
animals.  And  a  careful  consideration  of  this  passage  shows  that  the 
point  of  it  lies,  not  in  its  permission,  but  in  its  prohibition,  or  in  the 
qualification  of  the  arrangement  which  had  hitherto  existed,  and  was 
renewed  for  the  new  conditions.  It  is  most  simple  to  understand 
that  before  the  flood  men  had  eaten  flesh,  but  they  had  not  always 
taken  care  that  it  was  the  flesh  of  dead  animals,  from  which  the  life- 
blood  had  been  carefully  drained  ;  and  much  of  the  wildness,  ferocity, 
violence,  and  unrestrained  passion  of  the  old-world  sinners  may  have 
been  traceable  to  their  eating  flesh  with  the  blood  in  it.  Even  the 
carnivorous  animals  are  excited  by  blood,  and  a  similar  effect  is  pro- 
duced on  the  animal  nature  of  man.  The  food  of  man  was  the  same 
before  and  after  the  flood,  and  no  intimation  is  given  of  any  change 
in  his  bodily  organization  to  adapt  him  to  the  use  of  new  food.  But 
his  range  of  food  was  placed  under  one  severe  and,  indeed,  absolute 
restriction.  On  no  account  must  he  eat  a  living  animal,  or  the 
blood,  which  was  to  be  regarded  as  the  life  of  the  animal. 

This  is  not  the  view  often  taken  of  the  passage,  so  other  opinions 
may  be  given,  on  which  an  independent  judgment  may  be  formed. 
Inglis  says  :  '  It  has  been  thought  that  the  barbarous  practice  which 
existed  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  at  their  Bacchanalian  feasts, 
of  cutting  flesh  from  a  live  beast,  and  eating  it  raw,  is  here  prohibited. 
But  the  existence  of  such  a  custom  at  this  early  period  is  without 
evidence,  and  is  improbable,  especially  in  the  family  of  Noah.' 

Another  writer  says  :  '  It  is  usually  supposed  that  up  to  this  time 

25 


386      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

in  the  history  of  the  world  men  had  lived  entirely  on  the  vegetables 
and  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  that  flesh  was  only  permitted  as  food 
after  the  flood.  And  it  may  be  urged  that,  at  the  present  time,  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  globe  live  entirely 
on  vegetable  productions.  A  reason  for  the  permission  of  animal 
food  may  be  found  in  the  shortening  of  human  life  after  the  flood. 
Before  the  flood,  men  had  lived  nearly  a  thousand  years,  but  such 
prolonged  lives  had  singularly  favoured  the  development  of  vice  and 
crime :  presuming  upon  their  long  lives,  men  had  yielded  to  every 
luxury  and  indulgence,  and  become  abominably  corrupt.  God  would 
now  try  the  effect  of  a  shortened  life,  letting  the  brevity  and  the  un- 
certainty of  it  become  a  high  moral  force  to  restrain  men  from  sin. 
Men  now  have  no  kind  of  lease  of  life,  and,  however  extended,  it  is 
now  but  brief.  But  shortened  life  means  harder  labour ;  the  same 
ends  of  life  have  to  be  reached  in  a  short  life  as  in  a  long  one. 
Those  who  live  a  shorter  time  must  toil  more ;  those  who  toil  harder 
must  eat  better,  more  stimulating  food.  Therefore,  for  the  shorter- 
living  and  harder-working  race,  God  provided  animal  food,  so  that, 
for  as  long  as  life  lasted,  it  might  be  strong,  well  nourished,  and 
active.' 

•The  Speaker's  Commentary  notes  that  before  the  flood  we  have  no 
prohibition  of  animal  food,  and  says  :  '  It  is  likely  that  those  who  fed 
and  sacrificed  sheep,  like  Abel,  who  kept  cattle,  like  Jabal,  or  who 
handled  instruments  of  bronze  or  iron,  like  Tubal-Cain,  would  in  the 
course  of  time  have  learned  the  use  of  animal  food.  If  so,  we  may 
consider  the  words  of  this  verse  as  a  concession  to  the  infirmities  or 
the  necessities  of  mankind,  coupled  with  restrictions  which  may  have 
been  called  for  by  the  savage  practices  of  the  antediluvians.' 

In  another  note  the  idea  given  at  the  beginning  of  this  paragraph 
finds  support.  '  Rashi  and  some  other  Jewish  commentators  under- 
stand a  prohibition  of  the  practice  of  eating  flesh  cut  from  the  living 
animal,  and  so  Luther  translated  "the  flesh  which  yet  lives  in  its 
blood."  The  monstrous  wickedness  of  the  antediluvians,  by  which 
the  earth  was  filled  with  violence,  may  have  taken  this  form  among 
others ;  and  these  words  without  doubt  condemn  by  implication  all 
such  fiendish  cruelty.  They  prohibit  also  the  revolting  custom  of 
eating  raw  flesh ;  for  civilization  is  ever  to  be  a  handmaid  to  re- 
ligion.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  compares  the  injunctions  given  to  Noah  with 
those  given  to  Adam,  and  says  :  *  There  is  the  same  command  to 
fill  the  world  with  human  life,  and  the  same  promise  that  the  fear  of 
man  shall  rest  on  the  whole  animated  creation ;  but  this  grant  of 


FOOD  OF  MAN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  FLOOD.  387 

dominion  is  so  extended  that  the  animals  are  now  given  to  man  for 
his  food.  But  just  as  there  was  a  restriction  as  regards  Adam's  food, 
the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  being  refused  him,  so  now  there  is 
a  prohibition  against  the  eating  of  blood.' 

Lange  says :  '  The  eating  of  flesh,  which  had  doubtless  existed 
before,  is  now  formally  legalized ;  by  which  fact  it  is  at  the  same  time 
commended.  A  limitation  of  the  pure  kinds  is  not  yet  expressed. 
When,  however,  there  is  added,  by  way  of  appendix,  all  that  liveth 
(that  is,  is  alive),  the  dead  carcase,  or  that  which  hath  died  of  itself, 
is  excluded,  and  with  it  all  that  is  offensive  generally.  There  is, 
however,  a  distinct  restriction  upon  this  flesh-eating,  in  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  blood.' 

Delitzsch  explains  that  there  was  forbidden  the  eating  of  the  flesh 
when  the  animal  was  yet  alive,  unslain,  and  whose  blood  had  not 
been  poured  out,  namely,  pieces  cut  out,  according  to  a  cruel  custom 
of  antiquity,  and  still  existing  in  Abyssinia.  Accordingly  there  was 
forbidden,  generally,  the  eating  of  flesh  in  which  the  blood  still 
remained. 

The  natural  law  of  healthy  food  for  man  seems  to  be  this  :  it  shall 
consist  of  that  which  groweth  out  of  the  earth,  or  of  those  creatures 
that  eat  only  of  what  groweth  out  of  the  earth.  Carnivorous  beasts 
or  birds  do  not  provide  healthy  food  for  man. 

Thomson,  in  'The  Land  and  The  Book,'  says  of  Palestine  :  'In  this 
country,  not  only  blood-puddings,  but  every  preparation  of  blood  for 
food,  is  held  in  utter  abomination.  And  so,  also,  it  is  unlawful  to  eat 
animals,  fowls,  and  birds,  strangled  or  smothered,  and  cooked  with 
the  blood  in  them.  And,  in  my  feelings,  at  least,  the  Orientals  in  this 
matter  are  right.  Our  hunters,  when  they  shoot  even  a  small  bird,  are 
careful  to  cut  its  throat  and  "  pour  out  the  blood  thereof."  God  Him- 
self declares,  "  I  will  even  set  My  face  against  that  soul  that  eateth 
blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  My  people."  ' 

Kitto  says  :  '  It  seems  clear  to  us  that  animal  food — even  to  this 
day  but  sparingly  used  in  the  East,  and  in  some  Eastern  countries 
held  in  abhorrence — was  not  intended  to  be  the  food  of  man ;  at 
least,  in  his  original  condition.  Instinctively  we  recognise  the  fitness 
that  it  should  not  have  been  so.  The  appetite  for  the  flesh  of 
animals  is,  after  all,  to  a  great  extent,  the  effect  of  climatic  influences ; 
and  it  was  probably  not  until  mankind  had  spread  into  climes  far 
distant  from  their  first  seat,  that  they  began  to  transgress  this  rule  of 
food  ;  for  we  agree  with  those  who  think  that  the  distinction  of  clean 
and  unclean  beasts,  at  the  time  of  the  flood,  implies  the  previous  use 
of  animal  food.  ...  If,  as  the  language  most  clearly  implies,  the 

25 2 


388      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

extension  was  first  made  after  the  flood,  and  was  necessary  to  satisfy 
the  conscience  of  a  righteous  man,  it  is  manifest  that  animal  food 
could  only,  before  the  flood,  have  been  eaten  by  those  whose  trans- 
gressions brought  that  awful  judgment  upon  the  world.  Whatever 
we  say  as  to  the  period  between  the  fall  and  the  deluge,  vegetable 
food  only  was  allowed  to  man  or  used  by  him  in  his  first  estate. 
This  abstinence  from  animal  food  is  in  fact  preserved  in  the  traditions 
of  all  nations  as  one  of  the  characteristics  of  their  golden  age — the 
age  of  innocence.  .  .  .  But  little  animal  food  is  used  in  warm  coun- 
tries, whereas  large  quantities  are  consumed  in  colder  regions ;  and 
as  we  can  observe  in  our  own  experience,  the  inclination  for  flesh- 
meat  is  less  active  in  summer  than  in  winter — the  matter  seems  to 
be,  in  the  result,  chiefly  one  of  climate — men  residing  in  the  colder 
latitudes  requiring  a  stronger  nutriment  than  vegetables  supply  to 
make  up  for  the  greater  waste  of  animal  heat.' 


The  Abomination  of  Desolation. 

DANIEL  xii.  1 1  :  '  And  from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away, 
and  the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand  two 
hundred  and  ninety  days.'  (See  also  Matthew  xxiv.  15.) 

Question. —  What  is  the  historical  reference  of  this  term  ? 

Answer. — Most  of  the  commentators  seem  to  be  satisfied  with 
its  allusion  to  the  desecration  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  by 
Antiochus,  as  narrated  in  the  books  of  the  Maccabees  (i  Mace, 
i.  29 ;  2  Mace.  v.  24,  etc.). 

The  following  resume  of  the  incidents  is  given  by  the  Speaker's 
Commentary :  '  After  two  years  Antiochus  sent  that  detestable 
ringleader  Apollonius  to  Jerusalem  with  an  army  of  22,000  men,  and 
under  general  orders  to  slay  the  male  adults,  and  sell  the  women  and 
children.  Apollonius,  pretending  peace,  waited  till  the  Sabbath-day, 
and  then  fell  suddenly  upon  the  city,  and  destroyed  much  people. 
He  transformed  the  holy  city  into  a  stronghold  for  himself  and  his 
soldiers,  shed  innocent  blood  on  every  side  of  the  sanctuary,  and 
defiled  it.  In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  (B.C.  167)  the  edict  was 
issued  which  formally  forbad  to  the  Jews  the  exercise  of  their  religion 
and  their  national  customs.  The  Temple  was  polluted,  the  abomi- 
nation of  desolation  set  up  upon  the  altar,  and  idol  shrines  were 
erected  throughout  the  land.  The  occupation  of  Jerusalem  had 
made  the  Jews  powerless  to  resist.  Antiochus  thought  that  by  de- 
stroying the  religion  of  the  Jews  he  should  also  destroy  the  ground 
of  their  hatred  to  himself  personally,  and  to  his  strange  laws  and 


THE  ABOMINATION  OF  DESOLATION.          389 

introductions.  While  some  consented  to  the  religion  of  Antiochus, 
sacrificed  unto  idols,  and  profaned  the  Sabbath,  patriots  like  the 
sons  of  Mattathias,  Eleazar,  and  the  seven  brothers,  fought,  con- 
quered, or  suffered  death  rather  than  flinch  from  their  faith.  Few 
histories  are  more  spirit-stirring  than  the  history  of  the  struggle  for 
religious  liberty  and  political  independence  fought  by  the  little 
handful  of  men  against  the  armed  legions  of  Antiochus.  From  the 
day  that  Mattathias  struck  to  the  ground  the  Jew  who  had  dared  to 
sacrifice  to  idols,  till  the  day  when  the  "  lion,"  Judas  Maccabeus, 
practically  secured  respect  for  his  people  by  the  defeats  of  Nicanor, 
the  attention  of  the  reader  of  the  books  of  the  Maccabees  is  fas- 
cinated by  a  valour  which  never  would  acknowledge  defeat,  by  a 
cheerfulness  which  was  inspired  by  prayer,  and  the  consciousness  of 
a  just  cause.' 

Our  Lord  used  the  expression  as  a  figure,  and  it  is  generally 
thought  that  He  had  in  mind  the  appearing  of  the  Roman  eagles  in 
the  lines  of  the  besieging  legions  under  Cestius,  A.D.  68.  But  Dean 
Plumptre  says  the  explanation  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  faction- 
fights,  the  murders  and  outrages,  the  profane  consecration  of  usurping 
priests,  which  the  Jewish  historian  describes  so  fully  (Josephus, 
Wars,  iv.  6,  §§  6-8).  « The  Zealots  had  got  possession  of  the  Temple 
at  an  early  stage  in  the  siege,  and  profaned  it  by  these  and  other 
like  outrages  ;  they  made  the  Holy  Place  (in  the  very  words  of  the 
historian)  a  "garrison  and  stronghold"  of  their  tyrannous  and  lawless 
rule;  while  the  better  priests  looked  on  from  afar,  and  wept  tears  of 
horror.' 

Kinsman  Duties. 

RUTH  iii.  12  :  'And  now  it  is  true  that  I  am  thy  near  kinsman  :  howbeit  there 
is  a  kinsman  nearer  than  I.' 

RUTH  iv.  6-8  :  '  And  the  kinsman  said,  I  cannot  redeem  it  for  myself,  lest  I  mar 
mine  own  inheritance  :  redeem  thou  my  right  to  thyself ;  for  I  cannot  redeem  it. 
Now,  this  was  the  manner  in  former  time  in  Israel  concerning  redeeming  and  con- 
cerning changing,  for  to  confirm  all  things  :  a  man  plucked  off  his  shoe,  and  gave 
it  to  his  neighbour ;  and  this  was  a  testimony  in  Israel.  Therefore  the  kinsman 
said  unto  Boaz,  Buy  it  for  thee.  So  he  drew  off  his  shoe.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  trace  the  origin  of  this  idea  of  a  kins- 
man's responsibilities,  and  to  explain  the  retention  of  such  social  customs 
so  late  as  the  time  of  the  Judges? 

Answer. — The  ideas  of  the  kinsman  and  the  blood-avenger  are 
certainly  tribal,  and  belong  to  periods  when  there  was  no  delegation 
of  individual  responsibility  to  organized  governments.  It  could  only 
exist  when  the  family  feeling  was  altogether  more  prominent  than  the 


390      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

state  feeling,  when  men  were  relatives  rather  than  citizens.  It  was  a 
survival  of  the  time  when  Israel  was  one  of  many  Arab  tribes,  and 
its  revival  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  was  due  to  the  absence  of  any 
national  unity,  or  any  systematic  government  which  could  authorita- 
tively decide  any  matters  of  property  or  any  civil  disputes.  The  state 
of  society  is  fully  suggested  by  the  sentence  *  Every  man  did  that 
which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes ;'  and  in  such  times  only  ancient 
customs  and  family  traditions  put  any  effective  check  on  men's  wil- 
fulness. 

The  customs  hinted  at  in  the  above  passages  are  so  unfamiliar  to 
Western  minds  and  modern  nations,  that  some  account  of  them  may 
usefully  be  given.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  apprehend  the  simplicity 
of  the  state  of  society  in  the  time  of  the  Judges.  '  As  each  village 
was  complete  and  independent,  except  in  its  shadowy  relation  to  the 
chief  of  the  tribe,  so  each  family  had  within  itself  nearly  all  it  required. 
The  community  was  as  independent  in  the  wants  of  life  as  in  govern- 
ment. Nor  were  there  any  special  arrangements  such  as  we  have 
to  maintain  peace  and  order.  There  were  neither  judges  to  dispense 
justice,  police  to  guard  the  laws,  nor  court-houses  for  the  trial  of 
offenders.  The  elders  of  each  petty  community  decided  cases  at  the 
gate  of  the  village  or  town,  and  the  execution  of  their  sentences  was 
carried  out  by  those  interested,  without  the  intervention  of  public 
officers.  In  the  same  way  private  transactions  were  settled  at  the 
gate,  without  lawyers  and  without  writing,  but  before  the  inhabitants, 
who  served  as  witnesses.' 

Dr.  S.  Cox  writes  :  '  Among  the  many  laws  by  which  the  Hebrew 
legislators  sought  to  preserve  their  families  from  extinction  was  the 
law  of  the  goelim^  the  law  which  made  it  incumbent  on  the  nearest 
kinsman  to  take  a  childless  widow  to  wife,  and  ordained  that  any 
son  born  of  this  marriage  should  inherit  the  name  and  possessions  o  f 
the  first  husband.  This  kinsman  was  called  the  goel^  because,  "  by 
raising  up  seed  to  his  brother,"  he  redeemed  his  brother's  name  and 
inheritance  from  being  blotted  out.  .  .  .  Boaz  was  among  the  goelim 
of  Naomi  and  Ruth.  He  was  not  the  goel,  for  there  was  a  nearer 
kinsman  than  he ;  but  he  was  a  goel,  and  if  this  nearer  kinsman 
should  refuse  to  do  his  duty,  then  Boaz  might  step  in  and  do  it  for 
him.' 

The  Mosaic  rule,  which  at  once  preserved  and  properly  limited 
the  old  tribal  customs,  is  given  in  Deut.  xxv.  5-10.  The  custom  of 
'  loosing  the  shoe '  had  its  origin  in  the  fact  that  when  a  man  took 
possession  of  landed  property,  he  did  it  by  planting  his  shoe  on  the 
soil ;  he  asserted  his  right  to  it  by  treading  on  the  land  he  had 


DISTRIB  UTION  OF  THE  RA  CES.  391 

bought.  Thus  the  shoe  symbolized  a  possession  or  an  estate  which 
a  man  actually  held,  and  which  he  could  tread  with  his  feet  at  will. 
Naturally  and  easily,  therefore,  the  taking  off  of  the  shoe  and  offering 
it  to  another  came  to  signify  that  a  man  renounced  his  own  legal 
claim  to  a  possession,  and  transferred  it  to  a  neighbour  to  whom  he 
gave  his  shoe ;  with  the  shoe  he  gave  the  right  to  tread  and  till  the 
land.  This  singular  custom  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews  ;  it  also 
obtained  anciently  among  the  Germans.  But  among  the  Hebrews 
of  the  earlier  times  it  grew  into  common  use  as  a  symbol  of  exchange, 
and  was  employed  as  a  sign  of  the  transfer  of  rights  of  any  kind,  and 
not  only  to  denote  the  transfer  of  land ;  in  short,  it  seems  to  have 
been  as  common  as  signing  a  deed  or  handing  over  a  warrant  is  with 
us. 

See  paragraph  in  Handbook  of  Biblical  Difficulties ;  p.  251,  'Law 
oftheGoel.' 

Distribution  of  the  Races. 

GENESIS  x.  32  :  '  These  are  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Noah,  after  their  genera- 
tions, in  their  nations  :  and  by  these  were  the  nations  divided  in  the  earth  after  the 
flood.' 

Difficulty. — On  the  assumption  that  the  flood  was  a  local  cata- 
strophe^ the  distribution  of  the  nations  may  be  supposed  to  concern  only 
the  region  that  was  affected  by  the  flood. 

Explanation. — In  accepting  the  fact  that  the  flood  was  local, 
and  probably  confined  to  what  may  be  called  the  basin  of  the 
Caspian  Sea,  we  have  still  left  unsettled  the  question  whether  it  was 
effective  to  the  entire  destruction  of  humanity,  including  both  the 
Cainite  and  Sethite  races,  or  whether  it  was  a  judgment  reaching 
only  the  Sethite  race.  Ethnology  does  not  seem  to  have  taken  due 
account  of  the  possible  existence  of  Cainite  races  in  the  earth, 
distinct  from  the  descendants  of  Noah.  It  is,  however,  very  remark- 
able that  the  development  of  the  arts  and  sciences  is  attributed  exclu- 
sively to  the  descendants  of  Cain ;  and  they  are  severely  separated 
from  the  descendants  of  Seth.  The  sin  which  brought  on  the  flood 
is  distinctly  stated  to  be  the  sin  of  the  Sethite  men,  who  '  saw  the 
daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair,  and  they  took  them  wives  of  all 
that  they  chose.'  There  is  no  passage  in  Genesis  which  distinctly 
mentions  the  Cainite  race,  or  the  '  sons  of  men,'  as  concerned  with 
the  judgment  of  the  flood.  The  general  terms,  'the  earth  '  and  'all 
flesh,'  cannot  be  pressed  to  mean  any  more  than  the  earth  and  the 
people  with  whom  the  writer  is  directly  concerned,  and  it  may  mean 
the  Sethites,  and  the  districts  occupied  by  them. 


392      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

If  it  be  assumed  that  the  Cainites  were  destroyed  in  the  flood,  we 
shall  be  puzzled  to  see  how  God's  promised  protection  of  Cain  was 
fulfilled ;  for  to  spare  him,  and  wholly  destroy  his  descendants,  would 
seem  a  strange  way  of  carrying  out  the  pledge,  '  Whosoever  slayeth 
Cain,  vengeance  shall  be  taken  on  him  sevenfold.' 

Ethnology  is  a  science  that  demands  careful  and  prolonged  study, 
and  cannot  be  worthily  treated  in  a  brief  paragraph.  It  is  indepen- 
dent of  any  Bible  statements,  and  is  based  on  historical  works  and 
present  observation.  We  may  say  that  its  independent  conclusion  is 
that  the  whole  of  the  inhabitants  now  on  the  face  of  the  earth  may 
be  the  descendants  of  one  pair  of  human  beings  ;  the  similarities  be- 
longing to  permanent  things,  the  varieties  being  adequately  explained 
by  differences  of  location,  food,  etc.  But  it  must  be  admitted  that 
on  the  question  of  the  physical  unity  of  mankind  the  ablest  scientific 
students  are  divided,  and  even  Professor  Griffiths  doubts  whether 
the  Word  of  God  stands  committed  to  any  verdict  on  the  question 
of  our  physical  oneness.  For  if  the  name,  or  rather  the  word,  Adam 
does  not  denote  the  first  man,  but  only  the  first  elect  and  God-taught 
man,  or  if  the  term  Adam  is  used  generically  for  man  in  the  abstract, 
it  follows  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  makes  no  direct 
allusion  to  singleness  of  source. 

As  to  the  division  of  existing  humanity  into  three  races,  and  the 
recognition  of  their  descent  from  the  three  sons  of  Noah,  much  has 
been  written,  but  little  certainty  has  been  obtained.  Perhaps  more 
hopeful  results  would  have  been  reached  if  the  inquiry  had  been 
limited  to  the  districts  round  the  cradle  of  the  Noachic  race.  The 
Cainites  were  inventive  and  venturesome,  and  may  have  sought  out 
new  lands.  The  Sethites  bear  no  such  characteristics,  and  we  may 
reasonably  limit  their  migrations  to  the  vast  districts  of  Asia  and 
Northern  Africa.  Dean  Payne  Smith  gives  the  then-known  world  as 
referred  to  in  Genesis  x. :  '  Armenia,  the  regions  watered  by  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates,  the  Arabian  Peninsula,  the  Nile  Valley,  with  the 
districts  closely  bordering  on  the  Delta,  Palestine,  the  Levant,  and  the 
islands  of  Cyprus,  Rhodes,  and  Crete;  with  Lud  on  his  journey  to  Asia 
Minor,  and  the  Japhethites  breaking  their  way  into  Europe  through 
the  country  between  the  Caspian  and  the  Black  Sea.'  A  strictly 
limited  area. 

Kurtz  remarks,  in  relation  to  the  sources  of  this  genealogical  table, 
what  tends  to  limit  its  scientific  value.  He  says :  '  Together  with 
Hengstenberg  and  Delitzsch,  we  regard  the  sources  of  this  ethno- 
logical table  to  have  been  the  patriarchal  traditions  (and  these  must 
necessarily  have  been  general  and  unscientific),  enriched  by  the 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  RACES.  393 

mowledge  of  the  nations  that  had  reached  the  Israelites  through  the 
Egyptians.  Hengstenberg  had  already  begun  to  make  available,  in 
proof  of  this  origin,  the  knowledge  of  the  peoples  that  was  expressed 
Dn  the  Egyptian  monuments.  In  assigning  its  composition  (as  a 
constituent  element  of  Genesis)  to  about  the  year  1000  B.C.,  Knobel 
must  naturally  regard  the  ethnological  knowledge  of  the  Phoenicians 
is  its  true  source.' 

Lange  says  :  *  We  may  undervalue  this  table  if  we  overlook  the  fact 
that,  in  its  actual  historical  and  ethnological  ground-features,  it 
presents,  symbolically,  a  universal  image  of  the  one  humanity  in  its 
genealogical  divisions.  We  may  overvalue  it,  or  rather  set  a  false 
value  on  it,  when  we  attempt  to  trace  back  to  it,  with  full  confidence, 
all  the  known  nations  now  upon  the  earth.  Even  the  number  seventy, 
as  the  universal  symbol  of  national  existences,  can  only  be  deduced 
from  it  by  an  artificial  method.  It  is  only  in  the  symbolical 
sense  that  the  catalogue  may  be  regarded  as  amounting  to  this 
number.' 

,5".  R.  Pattison,  from  the  orthodox  standpoint,  says  :  '  In  a  general 
way  we  may  affirm  that  these  three  families  subsist  in  well-marked 
distinction  at  the  present  day,  and  roughly  correspond  with  leading 
divisions  which  have  been  established  on  the  ground  of  scientific 
observation  alone.  There  are  also  three  families  of  speech  :  i.  The 
Aryan,  or  Indo-European,  to  which  Latin,  Greek,  Persian,  Sanscrit, 
Keltic,  Slavonic,  German,  English,  and  most  modern  European 
languages  belong.  2.  The  Semitic,  comprising  Hebrew,  Phoenician, 
Armenian,  Arabic,  Assyrian,  and  Ethiopian.  3.  The  Turanian,  em- 
bracing the  Finnic,  Hungarian,  Tartar,  Turkestan,  Mongol,  Indian 
Hill-tribe  tongues,  and  Tamil.' 

Professor  Flower  says  :  '  After  a  perfectly  independent  study  of  the 
subject,  extending  over  many  years,  I  cannot  resist  the  conclusion 
so  often  arrived  at  by  various  anthropologists,  and  so  often  aban- 
doned for  some  more  complex  system,  that  the  primitive  man,  what- 
ever he  may  have  been,  has,  in  the  course  of  ages,  divaricated  into 
three  extreme  types,  represented  by  the  Caucasian  of  Europe,  the 
Mongolian  of  Asia,  and  the  Ethiopian  of  Africa,  and  that  all  existing 
individuals  of  the  species  can  be  ranged  around  these  types,  or  some- 
where or  other  between  them.' 

NOTE. — The  uncertainty  attaching  to  ethnological  conclusions  is 
strikingly  shown  in  Canon  Isaac  Taylor's  recent  book  on  the  '  Origin 
of  the  Aryans.'  The  following  summary  of  its  contents  is  taken  from 
a  careful  *  Review  '  given  in  one  of  the  leading  newspapers  : 


394      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

1  Max  Miiller  and  his  school  took  it  for  granted  too  readily  tha 
the  Aryan  race  must  have  originated  in  Central  Asia,  and  spreac 
from  thence  to  India  in  one  direction,  and  to  Europe  in  the  other 
They  took  it  for  granted,  too,  that  Sanskrit  must  necessarily  approach 
more  nearly  to  the  primitive  Aryan  tongue  than  any  other  language 
of  which  remains  have  descended  to  us.  The  last  ten  years  have 
seen  the  final  overthrow  of  both  these  rough-and-ready  provisiona 
theories.  Penke  and  his  school  have  demonstrated,  almost  beyonc 
the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  the  Aryans  were  rather  of  Europear 
than  of  Asiatic  origin ;  rather  a  northern,  or  intermediate,  than  i 
southern  race.  Evidence  has  been  brought  forward  to  show  tha 
Lithuanian  approaches  still  more  closely  than  Sanskrit  to  the  earlies 
form  of  the  Aryan  tongue;  and  now  Canon  Taylor  comes  to  th( 
front  to  convince  us  that  of  the  two  great  prehistoric  races  of  Europe 
the  primitive  Aryan  is  to  be  identified  rather  with  the  smaller 
darker,  and  broad-headed  type  than  with  the  taller,  fairer,  and  long 
skulled  Scandinavians  who  have  been  almost  always  accepted  til 
quite  lately  as  the  purest  representatives  of  the  unmixed  Aryan  blood 

'The  general  result  of  this  masterly  and  exhaustive  survey — for 
brief  and  popular  as  it  is,  it  deserves  to  be  called  both  masterly  anc 
exhaustive — will  be  to  dethrone  that  almost  mythical  animal,  ou 
Aryan  ancestor,  from  the  pinnacle  of  superiority  on  which  he  hac 
been  placed  by  the  poetic  fancy  of  fashionable  Max  Miillerism.  I 
is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  Canon  Taylor  has  demolished  fo 
ever  our  Aryan  ancestor — the  idyllic  ancestor,  that  is  to  say,  that  w< 
all  knew  and  loved,  and  were  so  inordinately  proud  of.  His  search 
•ing  examination  of  the  neolithic  culture  shows  us  almost  conclusivel; 
that  the  primitive  Aryans  were  barbarians  in  a  very  early  stage  o 
nomad  existence,  unacquainted  with  metals,  clad  mainly  in  skins 
dwelling  by  summer  in  huts  and  by  winter  in  circular-roofed  pits 
but  roaming  for  the  most  part  in  waggons  with  their  flocks  and  herd: 
over  an  immense  area  of  sparsely-populated  pastoral  country.  The; 
were  not  advanced  philosophers  ;  they  were  not  pure-mined  poetica 
patriarchs ;  and  they  were  not  immeasurably  superior  to  all  othe 
competitors.  Few  things  have  been  done  in  reconstructionary  histor 
to  equal  the  interesting  chapter  on  the  Neolithic  Culture,  in  whicl 
our  latest  iconoclast  proves  bit  by  bit,  and  step  by  step,  these  twc 
cardinal  principles — first,  that  the  neolithic  inhabitants  of  Centra 
Europe  were^  some  of  them  at  least,  primitive  Aryans  ;  and,  secondly 
that  their  civilization  is  shown  by  a  hundred  converging  lines  o 
evidence  to  have  reached  only  the  simple  and  undeveloped  level  of ; 
pastoral  tribe  in  its  stone  age. 


BURNING  DEAD  BODIES.  395 

1  Altogether,  the  book  is  a  most  wholesome  protest  against  an  undi- 
gested mass  of  unproved  assumptions.  The  pendulum  may  possibly 
lave  swung  for  the  moment  a  trifle  too  far  in  the  opposite  direction ; 
)ut  it  is  a  great  gain  at  least  to  have  reduced  our  Aryan  ancestor 
rom  the  exalted  and  incongruous  position  of  a  sort  of  primitive 
)reechless  Oxford  don  to  something  like  prosaic  and  average  equality 
vith  the  general  run  of  semi-civilized  neolithic  European  herds- 


Burning   Dead    Bodies. 

i  SAMUEL  xxxi.  12 :  'All  the  valiant  men  arose,  and  went  all  night,  and  took 
he  body  of  Saul  and  the  bodies  of  his  sons  from  the  wail  of  Beth-shan,  and  came 
o  Jabesh,  and  burnt  them.' 

Question. —  Was  this  burning  of  the  bodies  a  general  custom  of  the 
listrict)  or  a  special  act  intended  to  secure  these  particular  bodies  from 
further  desecration  ? 

Answer. — Burning  bodies  was  not  a  Jewish  practice.  There 
:an  be  little  doubt  that  the  men  of  Jabesh,  having  secured  the  bodies 
)y  a  night-stratagem,  feared  a  pursuit  by  the  Philistines  for  the 
•ecovery  of  the  bodies,  and  therefore  they  at  once  burned  them,  apd 
hen  buried  them,  so  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  their  being 
igain  carried  away  and  desecrated.  It  is  singular  that  the  burning 
;hould  have  been  done  so  carefully  as  to  preserve  the  bones  intact, 
ind  allow  the  men  of  Jabesh  to  give  the  bones,  or  framework  of  the 
Bodies,  the  usual  honourable  burial.  'And  they  took  their  bones, 
ind  buried  them  under  a  tree  at  Jabesh,  and  fasted  seven  days.'  . 

There  were  burnings  in  connection  with  the  funerals  of  the  kings, 
jut  it  was  a  burning  of  odours  and  spices,  not  of  the  bodies  (2  Chron. 
ivi.  14). 

Burder  has  a  curious  note  on  this  verse.  'The  Chaldee  and 
>ther  Versions  render  the  words,  "  and  they  burnt  or  kindled  a  light 
>r  lamp  over  them  there,  as  they  are  accustomed  to  burn  over  kings." 
Jpon  which  a  Rabbi  observes  that  this  has  reference  to  a  custom, 
lelivered  down  from  their  ancestors,  of  burning  the  beds  and  other 
itensils  of  the  dead  upon  their  graves,  or  to  the  burning  of  spices 
)ver  them.' 

It  is  singular  that  the  writer  of  Chronicles  should  omit  all  reference 
o  the  burning.  He  simply  says,  they  '  brought  them  to  Jabesh,  and 
mried  their  bones  under  the  oak  in  Jabesh.'  But  a  mere  omission 
nust  not  be  made  to  appear  as  a  contradiction. 


396      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
Solomon  as  an  Avenger  of  Blood. 

I  KINGS  ii.  31  :  '  And  the  king  said  unto  him,  Do  as  he  hath  said,  and  fall  upon 
him,  and  bury  him  ;  that  thou  mayest  take  away  the  innocent  blood,  which  Joab 
shed,  from  me,  and  from  the  house  of  my  father.' 

Difficulty. — Solomon's  vengeance  on  Joab  cannot  be  approved  on 
any  modern  principles  of  righteousness. 

Explanation.— This  must  be  fully  admitted.  If  David  failed 
to  punish  Joab  for  crimes  committed  during  his  reign,  every  reason- 
able and  merciful  consideration  leads  us  to  say  he  should  have  been 
left  alone  by  David's  successor.  But  we  have  to  judge  Solomon's 
action  in  the  light  of  the  ideas  and  sentiments  of  Solomon's  age  and 
people,  and  not  according  to  modern  and  Western  notions. 

One  long -established  and  well-established  principle  in  ancient 
times  was,  that  if  an  avenger  of  blood  failed,  during  his  life,  to  secure 
the  death  of  the  murderer,  he  left  the  duty  of  securing  that  death  to 
his  descendants.  That  duty  fell  on  Solomon.  David  had  failed  to 
avenge  the  death  of  Abner  by  securing  the  death  of  Joab  ;  and  there- 
fore, as  a  recognised  family  duty,  Solomon  was  bound  to  do  what 
David  had  left  undone.  He  so  far  tempered  the  idea  of  justice  with 
mercy  as  to  give  Joab  a  chance  of  life,  by  putting  him  under  con- 
ditions ;  but  Joab  was  too  strong-willed  a  man  to  keep  them ;  and, 
in  breaking  them,  he  relieved  Solomon  of  all  claim  to  mercy,  and 
made  it  right,  according  to  the  sentiment  of  the  age,  for  the  avenge- 
ment  to  be  carried  out. 

Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  '  David  had  never  formally  pardoned 
Joab ;  and,  indeed,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  by  the  law  there 
was  any  power  of  pardoning  a  murderer.  The  utmost  that  the  king 
could  do  was  to  neglect  to  enforce  the  law.  Even  in  doing  this  he 
incurred  a  danger.  Unpunished  murder  was  a  pollution  to  the  land, 
and  might  bring  a  judgment  on  it,  like  the  famine  which  had  been 
sent  a  few  years  before  this  on  account  of  Saul  and  of  his  blood) 
house,  "because  he  slew  the  Gibeonites"  (2  Sam.  xxi.  i).' 

Archdeacon  Farrar  writes :  '  Solomon  had  determined  that  this 
dangerous  and  blood-stained  man  should  die.  The  protection  anc 
pardon  which  David  had  promised  him  had  ended  with  David's  life 
Innocent  blood  still  remained  unavenged.  Joab  had  left  himsel 
without  excuse.  Solomon  considered  that  recent  events  were  as  a 
Divine  warning  to  wipe  away  in  the  blood  of  the  guilty  the  dark 
stains  of  unpunished  crime  which  might  mar  the  prosperity  ol 
David's  house.  We  must  judge  him  neither  by  our  customs  nor  b) 
our  moral  standards.  It  was  a  just  retribution,  but  a  deplorable  enc 


THE  LATER  CONTENTS  OF  THE  ARK.          397 

a  career  of  glory  which  had  struck  terror  into  the  enemies  of 
rael.  The  conqueror  of  the  City  of  Waters,  the  suppressor  of 
bsalom's  and  Sheba's  rebellions,  died  as  a  common  criminal'by  the 
mds  of  justice.' 

Evidently  Solomon  intended  to  bring  Joab's  case  within  the 
iphatic  declaration  of  the  Law,  that  no  sanctuary  should  protect 
e  wilful  and  treacherous  murderer,  and  that  innocent  blood,  so 
ed,  and  left  unavenged,  would  pollute  the  land  (Exod.  xxi.  14 ; 
urn.  xxxv.  33). 

The  Later  Contents  of  the  Ark. 

2  CHRONICLES  v.  10  :  '  There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  which 
Dses  put  therein  at  Horeb,  when  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  the  children  of 
ael,  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt.' 

Difficulty. — There  were  certainly  some  other  things  placed  in  it, 
'd  no  one  could  have  had  authority  to  remove  them. 
Explanation. — There  may  have  been  things  usually  spoken  of 
connection  with  it,  which  were  not  absolutely  inside  it,  but  were 
iced  safely  by  the  side  of  it.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
ebrews  speaks  of  '  the  ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  round  about 
th  gold,  wherein  was  the  golden  pot  that  had  manna,  and  Aaron's 
d  that  budded,  and  the  tables  of  the  covenant '  (Heb.  ix.  4).  But 
e  earlier  narratives  rather  indicate  the  placing  of  the  '  pot '  and  the 
Dd '  by  the  ark  than  in  it.  The  passages  as  given  in  the  Revised 
jrsion  are  as  follow :  'And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron,  Take  a  pot, 
d  put  an  omerful  of  manna  therein,  and  lay  it  up  before  the  Lord, 
be  kept  for  your  generations.  As  the  Lord  commanded  Moses, 
Aaron  laid  it  up  before  the  Testimony,  to  be  kept'  (Exod. 
i.  33,  34).  This  certainly  suggests  the  placing  of  the  pot  of  manna 
some  position  where  it  could  be  seen  from  the  mercy-seat,  or  cover 
the  Ark.  It  could  not  have  been  before  the  Lord,  it  must  have 
en  under  the  Lord,  if  it  was  inside  the  Ark. 

*  And  Moses   spake  unto  the   children   of  Israel,  and   all  their 
inces  gave  him  rods,  for  each  prince  one,  according  to  their  fathers' 
uses,  even  twelve  rods ;   and  the  rod  of  Aaron  was  among  their 
ds.     And  Moses  laid  up  the  rods  before  the  Lord  in  the  tent  of 

3  testimony.     And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow  that  Moses 
:nt  into  the  tent  of  the  testimony ;  and,  behold,  the  rod  of  Aaron 

•  the  house  of  Levi  was  budded,  and  put  forth  buds,  and  bloomed 
)ssoms,  and  bare  ripe  almonds.     And  Moses  brought  out  all  the 
ds  from  before  the  Lord  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel :  and  they 
)ked,  and  took   every  man  his  rod.      And   the  Lord  said  unto 


398      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Moses,  Put  back  the  rod  of  Aaron  before  the  testimony,  to  be  kept 
for  a  token  against  the  children  of  rebellion '  (Num.  xvii.  6-10).  The 
same  expression  'before  the,'  not  l in  the,'  is  also  here  employed. 

The  placing  of  the  '  tables '  inside  the  Ark  is  distinctly  narrated  in 
Deut.  x.  5  :  '  And  I  turned  and  came  down  from  the  mount,  and 
put  the  tables  in  the  ark  which  I  had  made ;  and  there  they  be,  as 
the  Lord  commanded  me.' 

The  verse  from  Chronicles  placed  at  the  head  of  this  paragraph 
certainly  indicates  surprise  that  nothing  but  the  tables  were  found  in 
the  Ark,  and  it  is  manifest  that,  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  the  pot  of 
manna  and  the  rod  were  lost ;  but  the  surprise  may  have  rested  on 
tradition  rather  than  on  knowledge  ;  and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  no  one  but  the  High  Priest  could  have  certain  information  con- 
cerning the  articles  contained  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  We  may 
assume  some  neglect  while  the  Ark  was  in  captivity,  the  result  of 
which  was  the  loss  of  these  sacred  relics. 

With  regard  to  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  need 
only  be  said  that  he  is  using  an  illustration,  and  simply  repeats  the 
commonly  received  tradition.  He  had  no  call  to  decide  whether 
the  'pot'  and  the  'rod  '  were  laid  up  in  the  Ark,  or  before  the  Ark. 
Whichever  was  the  fact,  it  was  equally  effective  for  his  purpose. 

We  incline  to  accept  the  view  that  there  never  was  anything  placed 
actually  inside  the  Ark  but  the  two  tables  of  the  covenant,  which  are 
said  to  have  been  '  written  with  the  finger  of  God.' 

The  Scattering  from  Babel. 

GENESIS  xi.  8  :  '  So  the  Lord  scattered  them  abroad  from  thence  upon  the  face 
of  all  the  earth  ;  and  they  left  off  to  build  the  city.' 

Difficulty. — This  assumes  a  miraculous  intervention  to  accomplish 
what  would,  in  a  natural  way,  come  to  pass  in  the  process  of  time. 

Explanation. — It  is  well  to  bear  constantly  in  mind  that  it  is 
the  genius  of  Holy  Scripture  to  affirm  the  direct  association  of  God 
with  everything  that  happens.  Every  incident  and  event  is  seen  on 
its  Divine  side.  And  God  is  as  truly  working  in  events  that  are  long 
processes,  as  in  events  that  are  suddenly  accomplished.  A  strange 
notion  has  taken  possession  of  our  minds,  to  the  effect  that  God's 
works  must  be  sudden  and  surprising — must  be  always  in  the  nature 
of  interruptions  and  interventions.  But  as  soon  as  this  tendency  is 
pointed  out  to  us,  we  see  how  it  may  blind  us  to  the  most  important 
workings  of  God,  who  has  'all  the  ages  to  work  in,'  and  is  as  truly 
working  in  the  ordinary  as  in  what  we  are  pleased  to  call  the 


THE  SCATTERING  FROM  BABEL.  399 

traordinary.     Indeed,  what  we  call  the  supernatural  is  in  fact  *  God's 
itural,'  which  happens  to  be  now  beyond  our  apprehension. 
There  is  no  reason  whatever  for  assuming  that  the  scattering  of 
e  race  preserved  from  the  flood  was  accomplished  suddenly,  by 
me  miraculous  effect  produced  on  their  speech.     Dialectic  changes 

language  would  soon  come  about  in  the  ordinary  way ;  and  these, 
jrking  together  with  the  over-crowding,  and  its  unhealthy  condi- 
>ns,  and  also  with  the  migrating  spirit  which  always  works,  as  a 
ister-passion,  in  a  certain  proportion  of  every  race  of  men,  would 
on  break  up  the  race,  and  scatter  it  all  over  the  land  that  was 
ailable,  and  could  be  reached  from  the  principal  race-centre. 
When  this  great  race-movement  came  to  be  narrated  ages  later  on, 

sense  of  time  had  been  lost,  the  over-ruling  of  God  was  specially 
ominent,  and  the  picture  in  which  it  is  presented  to  us  produces  on 

the  impression  of  a  sudden  Divine  interference. 
Dean  Payne  Smith  says :  *  Though  there  is  no  assertion  of  a 
iracle  here,  yet  we  may  well  believe  that  there  was  an  extraordinary 
lickening  of  a  natural  law  which  existed  from  the  first.  This,  how- 
er,  is  but  a  secondary  question,  and  the  main  fact  is  the  statement 
at  the  Divine  means  for  counteracting  man's  ambitious  and  ever- 
burring  dream  of  universal  sovereignty  is  the  law  of  diversity  of 
eech.  In  ancient  times  there  was  little  to  counteract  this  tendency, 
d  each  city  and  petty  district  had  its  own  dialect,  and  looked  with 
imosity  upon  its  neighbours  who  differed  from  it  in  pron  inciation, 
not  in  vocabulary.  In  the  present  day  there  are  counteracting 
luences ;  and  great  communities,  by  the  use  of  the  same  Bible, 
d  the  possession  of  the  same  classical  literature,  may  long  continue 
speak  the  same  language.  In  days  also  when  communication  is 

easy,  not  only  do  men  travel  much,  but  newspapers  and  serials 
blished  at  the  centre  are  dispersed  to  the  most  distant  portions  of 
2  world.  In  old  time  it  was  not  so,  and  probably  Isaiah  would  not 
ve  been  easily  understood  thirty  miles  from  Jerusalem,  nor  Demos- 
anes  a  few  leagues  from  Athens.  Without  books  or  literature,  a 
;le  band  of  families  wandering  about  with  their  cattle,  with  no 
mmunication  with  other  tribes,  would  quickly  modify  both  the 
immar  and  the  pronunciation  of  their  language ;  and  when,  after  a 
ir  or  two,  they  revisited  the  tower  they  would  feel  like  foreigners 
the  new  city,  and  quickly  depart  with  the  determination  never  to 
urn.  And  to  this  day  diversity  of  language  is  a  powerful  factor  in 
aping  nations  apart,  or  in  preventing  portions  of  the  same  kingdom 
m  agreeing  heartily  together.' 
Langc  collects  a  variety  of  explanations  of  what  he  calls  the 


400      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

miracle  of  confounding  the  speech.  'According  to  Koppen,  the 
miracle  must  have  consisted  wholly  in  an  inward  process — that  is,  a 
taking  away  of  the  old  associations  of  ideas  connected  with  words, 
and  an  immediate  implanting  of  new  and  diverse  modes  of  expression. 
According  to  Lilienthal^  Hoffman^  and  others,  it  must  have  been 
wholly  an  outward  process,  a  confusion  of  the  lips,  of  pronunciation, 
of  dialects ;  whilst  Scaliger  holds  that  differing  meanings  were  con- 
nected with  like  words  or  sounds.  The  historical  symbolical  expres 
sion,  however,  may  mean  that  the  process  of  inward  alienation  and 
variation,  the  ground  of  which  lay  in  the  manifoldness  of  dispositions, 
and  the  reciprocity  of  spiritual  tendencies,  became  fixed  in  diverse 
forms  of  speech  and  modes  of  expression,  by  reason  of  a  sudder 
catastrophe  brought  upon  them  by  God.  According  to  Kaulen,  the 
miracle  consists  in  this  :  "  That  at  that  time,  and  in  that  region,  then 
was  introduced  a  linguistic  change  which,  although  it  would  hav( 
naturally  come  in  in  the  course  of  things,  would  nevertheless  have 
required  for  its  full  development  other  conditions  of  space  and  time 
than  those  presented."  Fabri  says  :  "A  confounding  of  language* 
presupposes  a  confusion  of  the  consciousness,  a  separation  of  the 
original  speech  into  many,  a  disorder  and  a  breach  in  the  origina 
common  consciousness  in  respect  to  God  and  the  world." ' 

It  should  be  noticed  that  the  scattering  concerns,  at  the  most,  th< 
race  descending  from  Noah ;  and  the  insertion  of  this  narrative  ir 
the  very  middle  of  the  record  of  the  descendants  of  Shem  suggest; 
that  it  concerns  only  that  family.  The  vague  and  figurative  expres 
sions  '  all  the  earth  '  or  '  the  whole  earth '  Bible  students  fully  under 
stand  are  not  to  be  unduly  pressed.  They  mean  the  earth  witl 
which  the  writer  was  cognizant,  and  have  no  absolute,  universal,  o 
exclusive  character. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  character  by  which  Babel  is  repre 
sented  in  the  Assyrian  tablets  means,  according  to  the  opinion  o 
Oppert,  'The  city  of  the  dispersion  of  the  tribes.' 


UNCERTAINTIES  IN  BIBLE  NUMBERS.         40 1 

SUB-SECTION  VI. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  NUMBERS  AND  CHRONOLOGY. 


PRELIMINARY    NOTE. 

UNCERTAINTIES     IN     BIBLE     NUMBERS. 

\LL  Bible  students  recognise  the  difficulties  of  harmonizing  differing 
statements  of  numbers  in  the  several  books,  and  of  accepting  as  genuine 
certain  of  the  numbers  given,  which  bear  evident  marks  of  exaggera- 
tion on  the  face  of  them.  It  is  quite  certain  that  we  must  not  expect 
to  find  in  the  Scriptures  scientific  precision  in  matters  of '  numbers '  or 
of  '  chronology.'  It  is  only  needful  to  compare  together  the  accounts 
of  the  same  matters  given  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  in 
the  Books  of  Chronicles,  to  convince  ourselves  that  exactness  in 
estimates  of  numbers  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  histories.  One 
or  two  instances  may  suffice  by  way  of  illustration.  In  2  Sam.  viii.  4 
we  read  that  David  took  from  the  King  of  Zobah,  '  a  thousand  and 
seven  hundred  horsemen';  but  the  statement  made  in  i  Chron, 
xviii.  4  is  '  a  thousand  chariots,  and  seven  thousand  horsemen.'  In 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  9,  Israel  is  reckoned  at  800,000  warriors,  and  Judah  at 
500,000;  in  i  Chron.  xxi.  5,  the  return  is  1,100,000  for  Israel,  and 
470,000  for  Judah.  In  the  Book  of  Samuel,  David  is  said  to  have 
paid  for  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah,  50  shekels  of  silver;  in 
Chronicles  the  sum  paid  is  600  shekels  of  gold. 

The  difficulties  connected  with  Bible  numbers  are  so  numerous 
that  it  is  only  possible  to  select  a  few  cases  as  illustrative  of  the 
various  sources  from  which  uncertainties  arise.  But  when  all  the 
cases  are  carefully  reviewed,  the  impression  is  left  on  the  devout 
reader  that  they  concern  only  the  literature  of  the  book,  and  in  no 
way  affect  its  value  as  a  revelation  of  Divine  moral  and  religious 
truth.  The  utmost  that  can  be  said  is  that  there  are  flaws  in  the 
frame  of  the  picture,  but  common-sense  recognises  that  flaws  in  the 
frame  do  not,  in  any  way,  affect  the  artistic  truth  and  value  of  the 
picture.  Only  hard  and  fast — and  therefore  unreasonable — notions 
of  Divine  Inspiration  could  lead  us  to  expect  absolute  accuracy  in 
matters  of  mere  detail,  in  which  human  skill  was  competent  to  act, 
and  inspiration  need  not  be  concerned.  Men  can  make  estimates 
of  numbers  killed  in  a  battle,  and  human  imperfection  will  charac- 
terise their  estimate.  Men  can  make  a  more  or  less  correct  census. 

26 


402      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Men  can  copy  records  from  State  archives,  and  make  mistakes  in  the 
copying.  It  is  asking  quite  an  unnecessary  interference  on  the  part 
of  God,  if  we  expect  His  Spirit  to  specially  guide  all  men  who  make 
estimates  on  battle-fields,  who  undertake  the  census  of  a  population, 
or  who  copy  a  public  document.  In  all  matters  not  directly  bearing 
on  morals  and  religion,  there  is  the  ordinary  human  element  in  Bible 
records  ;  in  all  matters  bearing  on  morals  and  religion,  there  is  a 
manifest,  and,  we  think,  unquestionable,  Divine  supremacy. 

The  sources  of  divergence,  uncertainty,  and,  possibly,  error,  may 
be  noticed.  When  the  Scriptures  had  to  be  copied  by  hand  errors 
in  copying  were  sure  to  occur.  Let  anyone  now  try  to  copy  a  single 
page  of  some  other  person's  writing,  and  it  will  be  strange  indeed  if  he 
ensures  absolute  correctness ;  and  though  we  may  reasonably  assume 
that  every  care  was  taken  to  ensure  precision  in  all  authorised  copies, 
there  must  have  been  unauthorised  copies,  which  may  have  come 
into  use,  whose  errors  affected  later  copies.  Then  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that,  in  the  Hebrew,  the  ordinary  letters,  and  not  special 
figures,  were  made  to  represent  numbers :  and  several  of  the  letters 
are  so  nearly  alike,  that  even  a  slip  of  the  pen  would  suffice  to  change 
one  letter  for  another.  Thus  Vav,  \  stands  for  6 ;  Zain,  f,  stands 
for  7  ;  Vcd,  *,  stands  for  10 ;  Nun,  J,  stands  for  50;  J?esh,  *"),  stands 
for  200 ;  and  the  slightest  lack  of  precision  suffices  to  change  one  of 
these  letters  into  one  of  the  others.  Then  if  the  copyist  made  a 
mistake,  and  a  later  copyist  found  it  confusing,  he  would  be  likely  to 
guess  what  the  right  number  was,  insert  his  guess,  and  so  increase  the 
uncertainty. 

We  know  how  exceedingly  difficult  it  is  to  secure  accurate  statistics 
on  any  subject.  They  depend  on  the  skill  and  honesty  of  collectors, 
and  when  the  crude  materials  are  provided,  they  can  be  made  to 
prove  anything  which  the  arranger  of  them  may  desire.  Even  our 
census,  conducted  on  scientific  principles,  only  produces  results  that 
are  correct  in  a  general  sense ;  but  in  Old  Testament  times  the 
census  was  merely  a  rough  enumeration  made  by  parties  of  military 
men  marching  through  the  country,  and  counting  heads.  The 
estimates  of  population  in  Palestine  are  hardly  of  more  value  than 
estimates  made  of  populations  now,  in  Thibet,  or  in  Central  Africa. 
And  as  to  numbers  killed  on  battlefields,  they  are  always  untrust- 
worthy, and  the  estimates  made  by  the  victors  and  by  the  defeated, 
always  significantly  differ :  the  victor  swells  the  number  beyond  any- 
thing reasonable,  even  sometimes  making  it  more  than  that  of  the 
army  opposing  him  ;  and  the  defeated  limit  the  number  unduly,  so 
as,  if  possible,  to  minimise  the  effect  of  their  disaster.  Even  nowa- 


UNCERTAINTIES  IN  BIBLE  NUMBERS.         403 

days,  sober-minded  people  take  care  not  to  be  carried  away  by  the  first 
reports  of  those  placed  hors  de  combat  in  a  battle ;  the  early  report  is 
certain  to  be  qualified  by  strict  examination  of  the  regimental  lists  on 
both  sides.  But  in  ancient  times  there  was  no  qualifying  of  the 
original  extravagant  estimates. 

Nothing  is  more  uncertain  than  the  accounts  different  persons  will 
give  of  the  same  crowd.  Even  political  bias  affects  estimates,  and 
one  newspaper  will  give  20,000,  where  another  persists  that  there 
must  have  been  at  least  40,000.  And  to  all  uncertainties  that  belong 
to  every  age  must  be  added  the  strange  tendency  to  exaggerated 
boasting,  which  is  proved  by  the  monuments  which  record  the 
expeditions  of  Eastern  kings.  There  is  no  sort  of  moderation  in 
their  accounts  of  the  marvellous  results  they  achieved;  and  this 
characteristic  spirit  of  the  age  could  not  fail  to  influence  the  Bible 
writers. 

In  relation  to  Bible  chronology,  it  need  only  be  remarked  that 
recent  discoveries  have  brought  to  light  the  uncertainties  of  Scripture 
dates,  in  many  cases,  but  that  as  yet  a  full  correction  of  the  Bible 
chronology  is  hardly  possible.  The  time  before  the  Flood  cannot 
possibly  be  known,  for  it  is  not  possible  to  trace  perfectly  the  over- 
lapping of  the  long-aged  patriarchs  :  and,  indeed,  the  date  of  Adam's 
creation  is  quite  uncertain.  Before  the  Flood,  there  can  only  be 
guess-work.  Uncertainty  attaches  to  the  date  of  Abraham,  to  the 
length  of  the  Egyptian  sojourn,  to  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  to  the 
overlapping  of  the  Judges,  and  to  the  actual  lengths  of  the  reign  of 
the  Kings.  Elements  of  perplexity  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  way  of 
reckoning  parts  of  days  as  days  ;  parts  of  years  as  years  ;  and  of 
counting  the  years  in  which  a  son  was  joint  king  with  his  father,  both 
to  the  length  of  reign  for  the  father  and  for  the  son. 

These  points  have  been  summarised  effectively  by  R.  F.  Horton, 
M.A.  After  showing  that  the  Bible  authors  were  often  dependent 
on  existing  documents  and  previous  histories,  and  that,  therefore, 
their  work  reflects  the  varying  degrees  of  accuracy,  or  fulness  of 
detail,  of  their  predecessors,  Mr.  Horton  adds  :  '  And  now  a  word  or 
two  must  be  said  about  the  chronology.  An  accurate  system  of 
dating  events  seems  so  essential  to  the  modern  historical  sense,  that 
to  deny  accuracy  of  this  kind  to  a  work  seems  almost  equivalent  to 
destroying  its  value.  Accordingly,  the  usual  theory  of  Inspiration — 
which  constantly  gathers  into  its  idea  of  an  inspired  writing  all  the 
excellences  and  perfections  which  from  time  to  time  are  recognised 
or  demanded  in  other  writings  —  emphatically  maintains  that  an 
inspired  writer  must  be  faultlessly  exact,  guaranteed  from  all  possi- 

26 — 2 


4o4      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

bility  of  error  in  the  matter  of  dates..  Apart  from  this  a  priori  theory, 
however,  coming  to  look  at  the  actual  facts,  we  are  immediately 
struck  by  the  almost  entire  absence  of  chronological  exactness  in 
these  historical  writings.  The  writer  does  not  even  seem  to  have 
considered  what  his  own  chronological  statements  really  signify,  so 
that  contradictions  of  the  most  glaring  character  occur.  Quite  at 
the  beginning  of  the  book  (Kings),  in  the  sixth  chapter,  he  calls  the 
fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign  the  four  hundred  and  eightieth  after 
the  Exodus.  But  if  we  add  up  the  dates  supplied  in  the  other 
books  which  went  before,  we  find  that  there  would  be  more  like  five 
hundred  and  eighty  years  between  the  two  dates ;  and  we  know 
from  the  New  Testament  how,  in  St.  Paul's  speech,  the  period  from 
Joshua  to  Samuel  alone  is  reckoned  at  450  years.  In  fact,  so  com- 
pletely irreconcileable  is  this  statement  with  all  the  other  dates 
suggested  in  the  Scriptural  reckonings  that  some  commentators 
propose  to  strike  out  the  clause.  (See  paragraph  on  i  Kings  vi.  i.) 
But  even  if  we  were  to  do  this,  the  author's  chronological  reputation 
would  still  stand  in  rather  a  precarious  condition,  for  this  statement 
at  the  outset  is  simply  an  example  of  his  general  laxity  in  the  matter 
of  dates  all  through.  If  anyone  tries  to  lay  down  the  dates  of  the 
two  lines  of  Kings  in  Israel  and  Judah  from  the  notices  contained  in 
this  book,  he  will  quickly  perceive  that  he  is  attempting  to  do  what 
the  author  never  attempted.  He  seems  to  have  been  content,  in 
dealing  with  an  Israelite  King,  to  give  the  date  reckoned  by  the  year 
of  the  reigning  King  in  Judah  just  as  he  found  it  stated  in  the 
Israelite  Chronicles,  and  then  to  do  the  same  in  dealing  with  the 
dates  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  with  reference  to  the  reigning  King  of 
Israel ;  but  he  did  not  consider  whether  the  two  chronicles  har- 
monised. 

'  We  may  take  illustration  from  the  latter  part  of  the  work.  Hoshea 
began  to  reign  in  Israel  (2  Kings  xv.  30)  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
Jotham  the  King  of  Judah.  So  far  writes  our  author,  following  the 
records  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  For  his  next  paragraph  he  turns 
to  his  records  of  the  Southern  Kingdom,  arid  naively  tells  us  that 
Jotham  never  reached  a  twentieth  year,  but  only  reigned  sixteen 
years  (verse  33) ;  but  even  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  difficulty  :  in  chap, 
xvii.  he  goes  back  to  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  tells  us  that  Hoshea 
began  to  reign,  not  in  Jotham's  reign  at  all,  but  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz, 
Jotham's  successor;  and  if  now  he  had  said  "in  the  fourth  year  of 
Ahaz,"  we  might  see  our  way  through  the  perplexity,  for  the  fourth 
year  of  Ahaz  would  at  any  rate  be  twenty  years  from  the  beginning 
of  Jotham's  reign,  though  Jotham  himself  had  died  after  reigning 


UNCERTAINTIES  IN  BIBLE  NUMBERS.         405 

sixteen  years ;  but  he  says,  not  in  the  fourth,  but  "  in  the  twelfth 
year  of  Ahaz,  King  of  Judah." 

'  In  a  word,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  whatever  we  may  mean  by 
Inspired  History  we  at  least  must  not  include  that  kind  of  chronological 
exactness  which  we  require  in  modern  historical  works.' 

It  has  been  wisely  said,  that  '  the  Bible  has,  like  other  books,  a 
human  history,  and  is  as  much  liable  to  reverent  criticism  as  the 
sacred  literature  of  other  religions.'  And  that  the  recognition  of 
mistakes,  in  matters  of  detail,  is  no  new  thing  to  Biblical  students, 
may  be  shown  by  the  following  remarks  of  T.  Hartwell  Home, 
whose  volume  on  the  '  Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures '  now 
before  us  is  dated  1834  :  '  The  Old  and  New  Testaments,  in  common 
with  all  other  ancient  writings,  being  preserved  and  diffused  by 
transcription,  the  admission  of  mistakes  was  unavoidable ;  which, 
increasing  with  the  multitude  of  copies,  necessarily  produced  a  great 
variety  of  readings.'  Horne  gives  the  chief  sources  of  mistakes  as  (i) 
the  negligence  or  mistakes  of  the  transcribers ;  (2)  the  existence  of 
errors  or  imperfections  in  the  manuscripts  copied ;  (3)  critical  emenda- 
tions of  the  text ;  and  (4)  wilful  corruptions  made  to  serve  the 
purposes  of  a  party.  He  quotes  an  interesting  illustration  from 
Dr.  Bentley  on  'Free  Thinking.'  'In  profane  authors,  whereof  only 
one  manuscript  had  the  luck  to  be  preserved — as  Vellius  Paterculus 
among  the  Latins,  and  Hesychius  among  the  Greeks — the  faults  of 
the  scribes  are  found  so  numerous,  and  the  defects  so  beyond  all 
redress,  that  notwithstanding  the  pains  of  the  learnedest  and  acutest 
critics  for  two  whole  centuries,  these  books  still  are,  and  are  likely  to 
continue,  a  mere  heap  of  errors.  On  the  contrary,  where  the  copies 
of  any  author  are  numerous,  though  the  various  readings  always 
increase  in  proportion,  there  the  text,  by  an  accurate  collation  of 
them  made  by  skilful  and  judicious  hands,  is  ever  the  more  correct, 
and  comes  nearer  to  the  true  words  of  the  author.'  It  seems,  there 
fore,  that  in  the  very  variety  of  the  copies  of  the  Bible  may  be  found 
the  material  for  ensuring  correctness,  and  recovering  the  original 
statements. 


406      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Number  of  Souls  going  to  Egypt  with  Jacob. 

GENESIS  xlvi.  26,  27:  'All  the  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  which 
came  out  of  his  loins,  besides  Jacob's  sons'  wives,  all  the  souls  were  threescore  and 
six  ;  and  the  sons  of  Joseph,  which  were  born  to  him  in  Egypt,  were  two  souls  ; 
all  the  souls  of  the  house  of  Jacob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were  threescore  and 
ten.' 

Difficulty.  —  The  addition  of  two  sons  of  Joseph  will  not  make  the 
<•  sixty  -six  '  of  verse  26  into  the  '  seventy'  of  verse  27. 

Explanation.  —  It  will  be  well  to  examine  carefully  what  is 
actually  said  concerning  the  number  of  Jacob's  family  in  the  Bible. 
In  the  list  given  in  Gen.  xlvi.  there  is  an  apparent  confusion,  because 
Joseph's  two  children  are  mentioned  in  verse  20,  but  not  counted 
into  the  summary  of  verse  26.  The  sixty-six  is  made  up  in  the 
following  way  : 

Children  and  grand-children  through  Leah  -         -     33 

„  „  ,,       Zilpah        -         -     16 


,,         (but  confined  to  Benjamin  and  his  sons) 
Children  and  grand-children  through  Eilhah        -         -       7 

66 

The  number  '  seventy  '  of  verse  27  is  made  up  by  the  addition  of 
Jacob  himself,  Joseph,  and  Joseph's  two  sons,  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh,  four  additional  persons.  (It  is  singular  to  find  no  recog- 
nition or  record  of  the  daughters  of  Jacob.) 

The  number  *  seventy  '  is  confirmed  by  the  reference  to  Exod.  i.  5  : 
'  All  the  souls  that  came  out  of  the  loins  of  Jacob  were  seventy 
souls;  for  Joseph  was  in  Egypt  already.' 

But  in  Stephen's  review  of  the  history,  in  his  great  speech  (Acts 
vii.  14),  he  refers  to  the  number  of  Jacob's  kindred,  called  into 
Egypt,  as  being  'threescore  and  fifteen  souls,'  adding  five  to  the 
records  given  in  Genesis  and  Exodus.  Possibly  in  the  hurry  of 
excited  speech  Stephen  failed  to  remember  precisely  ;  but  if  that  had 
been  the  case  Luke  would  surely  have  corrected  such  a  mistake 
when  preserving  his  record.  It  would  rather  seem  that  some  tradi- 
tion had  been  kept  which  differed  from  the  early  Scripture  account. 

Dr.  Hales  gets  over  the  difficulty  by  the  very  simple  suggestion 
that  what  Stephen  quoted  was  a  list  giving  only  those  who  actually 
went  down  into  Egypt,  including  the  wives,  but  not  including  Jacob 
himself.  This  may  be  the  explanation,  but  no  hint  of  it  is  given  in 
Stephen's  speech,  and  only  the  accident  of  the  numbers  coming 
right  by  this  calculation  could  have  suggested  it.  Dr.  Hales  says  : 
'  In  this  statement  (Acts  vii.  14),  the  wives  of  Jacob's  sons,  who 


NUMBER  OF  SOULS  GOING  TO  EGYPT.        407 

formed  part  of  the  household,  are  omitted,  but  they  amounted  to 
nine ;  for  of  the  twelve  wives  of  the  twelve  sons,  Judah's  wife  was 
dead  (Gen.  xxxviii.  12),  and  Simeon's,  as  we  collect  from  his  youngest 
son,  Shaul,  by  a  Canaanitess  (Gen.  xlvi.  10);  and  Joseph's  wife  was 
already  in  Egypt.  These  nine  wives,  therefore,  added  to  sixty-six, 
gave  seventy-five  souls,  the  whole  amount  of  Jacob's  household  that 
went  with  him  down  to  Egypt.'  But  we  may  enquire  why  Jacob's 
wives,  Leah,  Zilpah,  and  Bilhah,  are  not  included  in  the  summary ; 
and  why  is  not  Jacob  included ;  and  if  their  father  had  four 
wives,  or,  at  least,  two,  is  it  reasonable  to  assume  that  all  his  sons 
contented  themselves  with  one?  And  it  may  be  asked  whether 
Simeon's  having  a  son  by  a  Canaanitish  woman  necessarily  involves 
the  death  of  his  wife.  Manifestly  Dr.  Hales'  calculation  is  too  easy 
a  way  out  of  a  difficulty. 

The  fact  appears  to  be  that  Stephen  quoted  from  the  Septuagint 
Version,  which  varies  from  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  verse  27,  which  it 
reads  thus  :  '  The  sons  of  Joseph  which  were  born  to  him  in  Egypt 
were  nine  souls.  All  the  souls  of  the  house  of  Jacob  who  came  with 
Jacob  into  Egypt  were  seventy-five.'  It  is  most  simple  to  assume 
that  the  five  grandsons  of  Joseph,  the  sons  of  Manasseh  and  Ephraim, 
had  been  added  to  the  list,  so  as  to  make  it  really  include  Jacob  and 
all  his  sons  and  grandsons — though  this  brings  in  great  grandsons  in 
the  case  of  the  favourite  Joseph. 

Dr.  Lumby  has  a  very  full  and  satisfactory  note  on  Acts  vii.  14  : 
'This  number,  75,  is  taken  from  the  LXX.  In  the  Hebrew  the 
number  is  but  70,  including  Jacob  himself.  The  five  additional  names 
given  in  the  LXX.  are  Machir  the  son,  and  Galaad  the  grandson  of 
Manasseh,  and  the  two  sons  of  Ephraim,  Soutalaam  and  Taam,  and 
Soutalaam's  son,  Edom.  So  in  Exod.  i.  5  the  Hebrew  has  70,  and  the 
LXX.  75.  There  were  many  traditions  current  on  this  subject,  and 
Rabbis  notice  too  that  69  persons  (they  exclude  Jacob)  are  reckoned 
for  70  in  the  accounts  given  Gen.  xlvi.  In  the  Midrash  Shemuel, 
c.  32,  there  are  various  suggestions  thrown  out.  First  it  is  said  that 
the  one  wanting  was  Jochebed,  who  became  wife  of  Amram  and 
mother  of  Moses,  for  it  is  mentioned  (Num.  xxvi.  59)  that  she  was  a 
daughter  of  Levi  born  in  Egypt,  and  the  tradition  is  that  she  was 
born  "between  the  walls,"  i.e.t  just  as  the  people  were  entering 
Egypt,  and  so  she  is  to  be  counted  in  the  number.  Another  tradi- 
tion is  attached  to  Gen.  xlvi.  23,  "The  sons  of  Dan,  Hushim."  As 
the  last  word  is  a  plural  form,  and  sons  are  spoken  of  in  the  verse, 
therefore  it  is  thought  that  there  were  two  Hushim,  an  elder  and  a 


4o8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

younger.  Also  there  is  mentioned  that  there  was  a  twin  with  Dinah. 
We  may  thus  see  that  there  were  traditions  current  which  probably 
were  well  known  to  the  translators  of  the  LXX.,  and  gave  rise  to 
their  number.  They,  however,  are  not  consistent,  for  in  Deuteronomy 
(x.  22)  they  give  70  as  the  number  which  went  down  into  Egypt. 
Stephen,  as  was  to  be  expected  from  the  other  quotations  in  this 
book,  and  also  because  he  was  a  Grecian  Jew,  follows  the  LXX. 
Stephen,  as  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  naturally  accepted,  without  caring  to 
investigate,  the  number  which  he  found  in  the  Greek  Version.' 

The  differences  between  the  Septuagint  translation  and  the  original 
Hebrew  will  often  explain  New  Testament  difficulties  and  apparent 
contradictions. 


The  Number  of  the  First-Born  Males. 

NUMBERS  iii.  42,  43  :  '  And  Moses  numbered,  as  the  Lord  commanded  him,  all 
the  first-born  among  the  children  of  Israel.  And  all  the  first-born  males  by  the 
number  of  names,  from  a  month  old  and  upward,  of  those  that  were  numbered  of 
them,  were  twenty  and  two  thousand,  two  hundred  and  threescore,  and  thirteen.' 

Difficulty. — If  the  entire  body  of  Israelites  reached  two  millions, 
as  is  generally  assumed,  this  represents  an  impossibly  small  proportion 
of  first-born  sons. 

Explanation. — The  Speaker's  Commentary  carefully  considers 
this  difficulty,  and  says  all  that  can  be  said  in  relation  to  it.  Verses 
40-43  give  the  numbering  of  the  first-born  males  throughout  the 
Twelve  Tribes  in  order  to  effect  the  exchange  commanded  in 
verse  12. 

'The  result  (verse  43)  shows  a  total  of  22,273.  This,  when  com- 
pared with  the  number  of  male  adults  (603,550,  cf.  ii.  32),  is  dispro- 
portionately small,  the  usual  proportion  of  first-born  sons  to  a  total 
male  population  being  about  one  in  four.  The  explanation  is  that 
the  law  of  Exod.  xiii.  i,  2,  prescribed  a  dedication  of  those  only  who 
should  be  first-born  henceforward.  (So  Vitringa,  Scott,  Keil,  Words- 
worth, etc.)  This  seems  implied  in  the  very  language  used : 
"Sanctify  unto  me  the  first-born,  whatsoever  openeth"  (not  hath 
opened)  "the  womb"  (Exod.  xiii.  2,  11,  12):  by  the  ground  which 
God  is  pleased  to  assign  (iii.  13;  viii.  17)  for  making  this  claim  :  by 
the  fact  that  the  special  duties  of  the  first-born  had  reference  to  a 
ritual  which,  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  had  yet  to  be  revealed :  and 
by  the  inclusion  in  the  command  of  the  first-born  of  cattle,  which 
obviously  must  mean  those  thereafter  first-born,  for  we  cannot 
imagine  that  an  inquisition  amongst  the  flocks  and  herds  was^made 


THE  NUMBER  OF  THE  FIRST-BORN  MALES.  409 

at   the   Exodus   to   discover  for   immediate   sacrifice  the  first-born 
already  in  existence. 

'Hence  the  real  difficulty  is  to  explain  how  the  first-born  sons, 
amongst  two  millions  of  persons  in  a  single  year,  could  have  been  so 
many  as  is  stated  in  the  text;  and  it  must  be  admitted,  notwith- 
standing the  well-known  and  often  very  remarkable  fluctuations  in 
statistics  of  this  sort,  that  some  unusual  causes  must  have  been 
concerned.  Such,  not  to  mention  the  Divine  blessing,  may  be  found 
in  the  sudden  development  of  national  energies  which  would  im- 
mediately ensue  on  the  Exodus.  Before  that  event,  the  miserable 
estate  of  the  people  during  their  bondage,  and  especially  the  in- 
human order  for  the  destruction  of  their  first-born,  would  check  very 
seriously  the  ratio  of  marriages  and  births  ;  and  this  ratio  would 
naturally,  when  the  check  was  removed,  exhibit  a  sudden  and  striking 
increase.  Commentators  adduce  some  auxiliary  arguments  :  e.g., 
Ketlj  from  statistics,  argues  that  amongst  the  Jews  the  proportion  of 
male  births  is  usually  very  large.  In  truth,  however,  we  have  no 
sufficient  data  for  entering  into  statistical  discussions  upon  the 
subject ;  and  it  is  obvious  that  inferences  drawn  from  the  statistics 
of  ordinary  and  settled  communities  are  not  altogether  relevant  to  a 
case  so  peculiar  in  many  ways  as  that  laid  before  us  in  the  Penta- 
teuch.' 

The  Number  of  the  Slain  Ephraimites. 

JUDGES  xii.  6  :  '  And  there  fell  at  that  time  of  the  Ephraimites  forty  and  two 
thousand.' 

Question. — Need  we  regard  this  as  any  more  than  the  usual  general 
and  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  victorious  general  ? 

Answer. — If  so  many  as  forty-two  thousand  soldiers  belonging 
to  one  tribe  fell  in  a  single  encounter,  the  army  of  Ephraim  must 
certainly  have  been  an  immense  one ;  and  it  seems  more  likely  that 
this  number  is  a  very  general  one,  not  to  be  over-pressed,  or  regarded 
as  accurately  descriptive.  It  may  be  that  the  42,000  represents  the 
entire  Ephraimite  army,  or  this  number  may  represent  the  total  loss 
of  the  Ephraimites  in  the  entire  campaign  :  such  a  butchery  at  the 
fords  is  quite  inconceivable  by  us.  Even  with  the  destructive  weapons 
of  our  time  such  a  slaughter  would  be  horrible  to  contemplate. 

It  should  also  be  noticed  that  Bible  accounts  of  battles  never 
distinguish  between  the  wounded,  the  missing,  and  the  dead.  More- 
over there  seems  to  have  been  no  systematic  counting  of  the  dead, 
and  the  numbers  given  are  guess-work,  merely  the  estimate  formed 
by  the  victors. 


410      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Those  who  feel  this  number  42,000  to  be  unreasonable,  get  over 
the  difficulty  by  suggesting  that  it  includes  the  slain  in  battle,  and 
those  killed  at  the  fords.  Perhaps,  too,  they  say,  it  is  the  whole 
number  of  the  Ephraimite  army  which  crossed  over  to  attack  Jephthah, 
and  which  was  routed  with  great  slaughter. 

It  is  quite  usual  for  the  number  of  killed  on  a  battle-field  to  be 
grossly  exaggerated.  It  is  part  of  the  bragging  of  the  victors,  and  a 
sign  of  their  excited  mood.  In  olden  times  the  first  exaggerations 
meet  with  no  later  qualifyings,  as  they  do  with  us,  when  the  actual 
numbers  of  the  foe  engaged  in  the  battle  comes  to  be  known.  But 
even  with  us  calculations  are  made  with  the  numbers  of  men  in 
regiments  at  their  full  strength  ;  and  a  complete  regiment  scarcely 
ever  yet  actually  went  into  a  battle-field.  In  the  days  of  the  Judges, 
it  was  not  possible  for  a  victorious  general  to  find  out  the  exact 
numbers  of  his  foe,  and  he  would  be  sure  to  guess  it  far  higher  than 
it  really  was. 

Lange  suggests  that  42,000  was  a  sort  of  round  number,  vaguely 
indicating  an  immense  slaughter,  and  probably  in  this  direction  the 
best  explanation  is  to  be  found.  He  says:  'The  number  42  (7 
times  6)  appears  to  be  not  far  removed  from  a  round  number ;  but 
its  occurrence  is  associated  with  severe  and  well-merited  judgments 
on  sin.  As  here  42,000  sinful  Ephraimites  fall,  so  42  of  the  mockers 
of  the  Prophet  Elisha  are  killed  by  bears  (2  Kings  ii.  24) ;  and  when 
the  judgment  of  God  breaks  forth  over  the  house  of  Ahab,  42 
brethren  of  Ahaziah  are  put  to  death  by  Jehu  (2  Kings  x.  14).' 

The  Time  of  Ishbosheth's  Reign. 

2  SAMUEL  ii.  10  :  '  Ishbosheth,  Saul's  son,  was  forty  years  old  when  he  began 
to  reign  over  Israel,  and  reigned  two  years.' 

Difficulty. — Neither  the  age  of  Ishbosheth  when  lie  began  to  reign, 
nor  the  length  of  his  reign,  as  given  here,  can  be  harmonized  with  other 
references  to  him. 

Explanation. — The  expression  'when  he  began  to  reign'  is 
said  to  be  used  only  for  the  accession  of  a  fully  recognised  sovereign. 
(Compare  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  and  v.  4.)  After  Saul's  death,  Abner  was 
engaged  for  five  years  in  restoring  the  dominion  of  the  house  of  Saul 
over  the  Trans-Jordanic  territory,  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  the  moun- 
tains of  Ephraim,  the  frontier  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  eventually 
'  over  all  Israel,'  with,  of  course,  the  exception  of  Judah.  Ishbosheth 
was  the  representative  of  the  house  of  Saul  during  those  five  years, 
but  he  was  not  regarded  as  King  until  the  land  was  united  in  the 


THE  TIME  OF  ISHBOSHETH'S  REIGN.          411 

acceptance  of  him.  His  actual  recognised  sovereignty  did  but  last 
two  years. 

Another  suggestion  has  been  made.  '  Since  David  reigned  seven 
years  in  Hebron  over  Judah  only,  it  follows,  if  the  two  years  of 
verse  10  are  correct,  either  that  an  interval  of  five  years  elapsed 
between  Ishbosheth's  death  and  David's  being  anointed  "  King  over 
all  Israel,"  or  that  a  like  interval  elapsed  between  Saul's  death  and 
the  commencement  of  Ishbosheth's  reign.'  It  is,  however,  very 
unlikely  that,  after  Abner's  negotiations,  so  long  a  time  as  five  years 
passed  before  David  gained  the  full  sovereignty.  Such  a  period 
would  have  involved  serious  divisions  among  the  tribes  who  were 
without  any  recognised  bond  of  union,  or  systematic  government, 
and  after  such  a  period  of  anarchy  David's  position  would  have  been 
far  more  difficult  than  the  history  declares  it  to  have  been. 

It  is  not  easy  to  fit  the  age  of  forty  for  Ishbosheth  with  other 
notices  of  Saul's  family.  If  he  waited  five  years  before  beginning 
his  reign,  and  was  then  forty,  he  must  have  been  thirty-five  when 
his  father  died  at  Gilboa.  He  must  have  been  born  some  three  years 
before  his  father's  accession,  and  he  must  have  been  five  years  older 
than  David,  the  bosom  friend  of  his  elder  brother,  Jonathan. 

It  is  probable  that  the  numerals  in  this  verse  both  need  correction, 
and  the  passage  illustrates  the  uncertainty  attaching  to  the  numbers 
given  in  Old  Testament  narrative. 

The  Numbers   Smitten  at  Bethshemesh. 

i  SAMUEL  vi.  19  :  'And  he  smote  the  men  of  iJethshemesh,  because  they  had 
looked  into  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  even  he  smote  of  the  people  seventy  men,  and 
fifty  thousand  men  :  and  the  people  mourned  because  the  Lord  had  smitten  the 
people  with  a  great  slaughter.' 

Difficulty. — Bethshemesh  was  but  a  small  place,  and  the  number 
given  is  almost  inconceivable.  For  such  a  proportion  to  be  killed  repre- 
sents Bethshemesh  as  a  vast  city. 

Explanation. — The  Speaker's  Commentary  says  :  '  Read  three- 
score and  ten,  and  omit  fifty  thousand.'  And  it  adds  the  following 
explanatory  note:  'The  LXX.  read:  "And  he  smote  of  them  70 
men,  and  50,000  men."  The  old  versions  vary  very  much,  and  sug- 
gest various  explanations.  The  Syriac  and  Arabic  read  5,070.  The 
Chaldee  Targum  of  Jonathan  has  70  elders,  and  50,000  common 
people,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  the  Vulgate.  Some  rabbis  of 
note  interpret  that  the  70  slain  were  men  of  such  renown  as  to  be  as 
good  as  50,000.  Bochart  explains  the  meaning  to  be  :  "  He  smote 
70  men,  50  out  of  a  thousand,"  as  if  for  1,400  men  who  deserved 


412      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

death  God  had  mercifully  smitten  only  seventy,  or  one  in  twenty. 
Lederc  explains  it :  "  He  smote  70  men  out  of  50,000."  And  most 
Christian  as  well  as  Jewish  expositors  feel  the  extreme  improbability 
on  every  account  of  a  slaughter  of  50,000  men  on  such  an  occasion, 
and  in  such  a  place — a  mere  village. 

'  But  all  the  above  explanations  are  strained  and  unnatural.  It  is 
more  to  the  purpose  to  observe :  (i)  That  the  sentence  in  the 
Hebrew  bears  manifest  marks  of  corruption;  (a)  in  placing  the  70 
men  before  the  50,000,  contrary  to  Hebrew  usage  •  (b)  in  the  omis- 
sion of  the  conjunction  and ;  (c]  in  repeating  the  word  men  ;  (d)  in 
speaking  of  the  people  as  still  existing  after  50,070  were  slain. 

(2)  That  Josephus  only  reads  seventy  men  in  his  copies  of  the  Bible, 
since  he  only  speaks   of  so   many  as   struck    by  lightning.      And 

(3)  that   Kennicott  quotes  two  Hebrew  MSS.   of  great  excellence 
and  antiquity  in  which  the  words  fifty  thousand  men  are  not  found. 

'We  may  therefore  safely  conclude  that  the  words  "50,000  men" 
are  no  part  of  the  sacred  text,  but  have  crept  in  from  the  margin, 
where  they  had  been  marked  as  a  various  reading,  the  origin  of  such 
reading  probably  being  to  be  sought  in  the  custom  of  expressing 
numbers  by  letters,  and  the  resemblance  in  the  old  Hebrew  alphabet 
between  the  letter  ain,  which  denotes  70,  and  the  letter  nun,  which 
denotes  50,000.' 

Canon  Spence  says  :  '  Bethshemesh  was  never  a  large  or  important 
place.  There  were,  in  fact,  no  great  cities  in  Israel ;  the  population 
was  always  a  scattered  one,  the  people  living  generally  on  their  farms.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  computes  the  population  of  Jerusalem  in  its 
best  days  at  only  70,000,  and  it  would  be  an  awful  desolation  indeed 
for  50,000  of  them  to  be  slain  at  one  fell  stroke.  And  such  a 
number  stricken  in  one  of  the  country  villages  is  simply  inconceiv- 
able. It  is  quite  clear  that  the  view  we  take  of  inspiration  must 
reckon  with  the  fact  of  this  uncertainty  and  inaccuracy  of  Bible 
numbers. 

Date  of  Building  the  Temple. 

i  KINGS  vi.  i  :  'And  it  came  to  pass  (in  the  four  hundred  and  eightieth  year 
after  the  children  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt),  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Solomon's  reign  over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif,  which  is  the  second  month,  that 
he  began  to  build  the  house  of  the  Lord.' 

Difficulty. — This  insertion  in  the  text  may  have  only  the  authority 
of  a  late  editor,  and  so  be  no  basis  on  which  to  rest  a  chronological 
system. 

Explanation. — It  is  probably  an  explanatory  note  from  the 
margin  which  has  gained  insertion  in  the  text.  It  is  of  little  value 


DATE  OF  BUILDING  THE  TEMPLE.  413 

jntil  the  date  of  the  exodus  can  be  definitely  fixed.  At  present 
ive  systems  of  chronology  give  five  different  dates:  B.C.  1648, 
1593,  1491,  1531,  1320  respectively,  the  last  date  being  peculiar 
:o  Bunsen. 

Canon  Rawlinson  gives  the  following  note  :  *  It  is  upon  this  state- 
ment that  all  the  earlier  portion  of  what  is  called  the  "  received 
chronology"  depends.  The  year  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple 
:an  be  approximately  fixed  by  adding  the  remaining  years  of 
Solomon's  reign,  the  years  of  the  kings  oT  Judah,  and  the  seventy 
years  of  the  captivity,  to  the  received  date  for  the  accession  of  Cyrus 
to  the  throne  of  Babylon.  The  chronology  thus  obtained  is  checked, 
and  (in  a  general  way)  confirmed,  by  the  ancient  document  called 
the  "Canon  of  Ptolemy,"  by  the  recently-discovered  ''Assyrian 
Canon,"  and  again  by  the  chronology  of  Egypt.  Amid  minor  differ- 
ences there  is  a  general  agreement  which  justifies  us  in  placing  the 
accession  of  Solomon  about  B.C.  1000.  But  great  difficulties  meet 
us  in  determining  the  sacred  chronology  anterior  to  this.  Apart 
from  the  present  statement,  the  chronological  data  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  insufficient  to  fix  the  interval  between  Solomon's  accession 
and  the  Exodus,  since  several  of  the  periods  which  make  it  up  are 
unestimated.  The  duration  of  Joshua's  judgeship,  the  interval 
between  his  death  and  the  servitude  of  Chushan  Rishathaim,  and 
the  duration  of  the  judgeships  of  Shamgar  and  Samuel,  are  not  men- 
tioned in  Scripture.  Again,  the  frequent  occurrence  of  round 
numbers  (twenty,  forty,  eighty)  in  this  portion  of  the  chronology 
seems  to  indicate  an  inexact  reckoning,  which  would  preclude  us 
from  fixing  the  dates  with  any  accuracy.  .  .  .  The  text  itself  is  not 
free  from  suspicion,  (i)  It  is  the  sole  passage  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  contains  the  idea  of  dating  events  from  an  era — an  idea  which 
did  not  occur  to  the  Greeks  till  the  time  of  Thucydides.  (2)  It  is 
quoted  by  Origen  without  the  words  that  are  enclosed  in  brackets. 
(3)  It  seems  to  have  been  known  only  in  this  shape  to  Josephus,  to 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  and  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  would  all 
naturally  have  referred  to  the  date  had  it  formed  a  portion  of  the 
passage  in  their  day.  (4)  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  hard  to  reconcile 
with  other  chronological  statements  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
Though  the  Books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Samuel  furnish  us  with  no 

exact  chronology,  they  still  supply  important  chronological  data 

data  which  seem  to  indicate  for  the  interval  between  the  Exodus  and 
Solomon,  a  period  considerably  exceeding  480  years.'  The  years 
actually  set  down  amount  to  580,  if  not  600,  and  allowing  for  round 
numbers  and  overlappings,  can  hardly  be  reduced  to  480.  On  the 


414      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

whole,  therefore,  it  seems  probable  that  the  bracketed  words  in  this 
text  are  an  interpolation,  due  to  some  copyist  as  late  as  the  third 
century  of  our  era. 

Jehoshaphat's   Men  of  War. 

2  CHRONICLES  xvii.  14  :  '  And  these  are  the  numbers  of  them  according  to  the 
house  of  their  fathers.' 

Difficulty. — The  numbers  here  given  cannot  be  harmonized  with 
any  other  statements  made  concerning  the  military  force. 

Explanation. — C.  J.  Ball>  M.A.,  in  'Ellicott's  Commentary/ 
points  out  the  signs  of  exaggeration  in  this  estimate,  and  says  all  that 
can  be  said  in  favour  of  its  correctness.  Canon  Raivlinson,  in  the 
'  Speaker's  Commentary,'  argues  that  the  numbers  given  in  our 
Authorised  Version  must  be  corrupt.  Both  notes  may  be  given  as 
the  material  on  which  our  readers  may  form  their  own  judgments. 

Ball  says  :  '  According  to  the  above  list,  the  army  of  Jehoshaphat 
was  organized  in  five  grand  divisions,  corresponding  perhaps  to  five 
territorial  divisions  of  the  southern  kingdom.  The  totals  are  the 
largest  assigned  to  the  two  tribes  anywhere  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
viz.,  Judah  780,000,  and  Benjamin  380,000;  in  all,  1,160,000.  At 
David's  census  (of  the  entire  kingdom)  Judah  had  500,000  warriors 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  9),  and  Israel  800,000.  Again,  in  chap.  xiv.  8,  Asa's 
army  consists  of  300,000  men  of  Judah,  and  280,000  Benjamites. 
Clearly  such  an  increase  as  our  text  indicates  is  unaccountable.  At 
the  same  time,  it  is  equally  clear  that  the  present  numbers  are  not 
fortuitous  results  of  clerical  errors,  for  they  follow  each  other  in  the 
order  of  relative  strength ;  Judah,  300,000,  280,000,  200,000 ; 
Benjamin,  200,000,  180,000  ;  and  they  are  evidently  not  independent 
of  the  estimates  of  chap.  xiv.  8.  In  the  absence  of  adequate  data 
for  modifying  these  certainly  startling  figures,  it  is  well  to  bear  in 
mind,  that  we  need  not  understand  by  them  an  army  which  ever 
actually  mustered  in  the  field  or  on  parade,  but  simply  an  estimate 
of  the  total  male  population  liable  to  be  called  out  for  the  national 
defence ;  although,  even  upon  that  understanding,  the  total  appears 
to  be  at  least  three  times  too  great,  considering  the  small  extent  of 
the  country.' 

Rawlinson  says :  '  These  numbers  have  been  with  good  reason 
regarded  as  corrupt  by  most  critics.  They  cannot  be  successfully 
defended  either  as  probable  in  themselves,  or  as  in  harmony  with 
the  other  statements  of  the  military  force,  or  of  the  population, 
contained  in  our  author.  For  (i)  They  imply  a  minimum  population 


THE  LIMIT  OF  THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS.        415 

f  1,480  to  the  square  mile,  which  is  more  than  three  times  greater 
lan  that  of  any  country  in  the  known  world.  (2)  They  produce  a 
Dtal  which  largely  exceeds  every  other  statement  of  the  military  force 
f  Judah  which  we  have  in  Scripture,  the  amount  being  just  double 
lat  of  the  next  largest  estimate — the  580,000  of  chap.  xiv.  8.  (3) 
"hey  are  professedly  a  statement,  not  of  the  whole  military  force, 
ut  of  the  force  maintained  at  Jerusalem  (verse  13),  and  are  distinctly 
lid  to  be  exclusive  of  the  numerous  garrisons  in  the  other  cities 
nd  strongholds  of  Judah  (see  verse  19,  and  compare  verses  2  and  12). 
\)  They  are  suspicious  in  themselves,  the  first  (300,000)  and  second 
280,000)  being  repetitions  of  the  numbers  in  chap.  xiv.  8,  while  the  re- 
lainder  (200,000,  200,000,  r 80,000)  are  formed  from  these  by  the  de- 
uction  from  them  in  each  case  of  100,000.  Some  writers  would  correct 
le  passage  by  removing  from  each  of  the  numbers  one  cypher,  thus 
educing  the  total  from  1,160,000  to  116,000  :  but  it  is  more  probable 
lat  the  original  numbers  have  been  lost,  and  the  loss  supplied  by  a 
cribe  who  took  chap.  xiv.  8  as  his  basis.' 

The  Limit  of  the  Seventy  Weeks. 

DANIEL  ix.  26  :  '  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off, 
ut  not  for  himself.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  decide  from  what  event  these  l  weeks ' 
f  years  are  to  be  reckoned  ? 

Answer. — It  is  manifest  that  the  term  'weeks'  is  used  in  a 
gurative  and  prophetical  sense,  and  it  may  be  fairly  questioned 
'hether  any  definite  time  is  intended  to  be  given.  The  number 
lay  but  represent  what  we  can  express  as  God's  '  fulness  of  time.' 
t  may  be  designed  to  prevent  our  seeking  to  fix  dates.  In  God's 
ood  time ;  God's  perfect  time  ;  the  time  altogether  best  left  in  God's 
and,  Messiah  shall  come.  It  is  always  true,  '  times  and  seasons ' 
rod  keeps  in  His  own  power.  The  use  by  Daniel  of  '  seven,'  as  the 
umber  representing  'perfection,'  is  very  striking,  and  suggests  that 
le  mere  numeral  value  cannot  be  intended. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  says  :  '  It  is  generally  supposed  that  these 
3venty  weeks  are  weeks  of  years ;  and  that,  as  all  Hebrew  and 
!hristian  Antiquity  agree,  they  make  a  period  of  four  hundred  and 
inety  years.'  The  seventy  is  divided  into  seven,  sixty-two,  and  one. 
Within  seven  weeks  (i.e.,  49  years)  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  would  be 
uilt,  and  the  city  settled.  This  was  fulfilled  by  Nehemiah's  reforma- 
on,  and  by  the  sealing  up  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
ithin  forty-nine  years  after  the  decree  to  restore  the  city.'  The 


4i 6      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

sixty-two  weeks  of  years  represent  the  time  between  the  Testaments ; 
and  then  the  week  following  was  that  which  represented  the  time  of 
Messiah  •  but  by  no  computation  can  either  the  life  of  Christ,  or  His 
ministry,  be  made  to  fit  precisely  a  prophecy  of  seven  years  (one 
week  of  years).  If  we  cannot  press  literal  exactness  in  regard  to 
this  one  week,  we  need  not  seek  historical  exactness  in  regard  to  the 
other  numbers  of  weeks.  Those  who  seek  for  exact  and  literal 
applications  of  the  prophecy,  fix  on  the  commission  to  Ezra,  in  the 
seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  as  the  starting-point  of  Daniel's  work ; 
but  the  Bible  gives  no  hint  on  the  subject,  and  this  alone  would 
suggest  that  a  general,  rather  than  a  precise,  explanation  of  the 
prophetic  numbers  is  to  be  preferred. 

It  will  also  be  noticed  that  different  prophetic  schools  explain  the 
Bible  numbers  in  different  ways ;  and  the  very  fact  that  such  differing 
explanations  are  found  possible  suggests,  to  the  thoughtful  student, 
the  questionable  value  of  any  man-made  theories.  And  it  must 
be  added,  that  recent  inquiries  into  the  origin,  date,  and  authorship 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel  may  necessitate  a  re-reading  of  the  book  in  a 
new  light,  and  an  endeavour  to  find  the  references  of  its  prophecies 
in  the  history  of  the  immediately  associated  age. 

The  uncertainty  of  all  strictly  literal  applications  of  the  term 
'  seventy  weeks '  is  shown  by  the  variety  of  opinion  concerning  the 
date  from  which  they  are  to  be  reckoned,  and  the  date  to  which  the 
seventy  may  be  supposed  to  reach.  On  these  essential  points  opinion 
must  be  quite  arbitrary,  and  arguments  in  support  of  opinion  must 
be  purely  human  manufacture,  that  may  appear  to  us  more  or  less 
reasonable.  Thus  to  the  majority  of  the  fathers,  with  Hengstenberg, 
Havernick,  Reinke,  and  Wordsworth,  the  'terminus  a  quo'  is  the 
2oth  year  of  Artaxerxes  (B.C.  445)  •  and  the  'terminus  ad  quern  '  the 
public  appearance  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  i)  at  the  end  of  the  69 
weeks.  With  Auberlen  and  Pusey  the  '  terminus  a  quo '  is  the 
return  to  Jerusalem  sanctioned  by  Artaxerxes  in  his  seventh  year 
(B.C.  457),  the  'terminus  ad  quern,'  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen 
(A.D.  33).  With  others  the  'terminus  a  quo'  is  either  the  edict  of 
Cyrus,  B.C.  536,  or  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldaean 
army,  B.C.  606,  and  the  '  terminus  ad  quern,'  the  age  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  (See  Speaker's  Commentary,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  360-365.) 

The  way  in  which  the  difficulties  of  this  subject  oppress  the  careful 
student  is  shown  in  the  following  sentences  from  the  closing  part  of 
the  note  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary :  '  It  is  in  fact  quite  possible 
to  admit,  that  while  the  historical  horizon  of  these  chapters  appears 
to  be  terminated  by  the  Grecian  kingdom;  while,  moreover,  the 


MA  TTERS  OF  RELIGION.  4 1 7 

essation  of  the  persecution  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  connected 
vith  the  Advent  of  an  Anointed  One,  and  the  commencement  of  the 
vlessianic  kingdom,  yet  such  historical  restrictions  do  not  exclude  or 
upersede  the  belief  that  prophecy  prefigured,  under  a  historic  garb,  the 
epetition  of  many  of  these  acts  in  later  and  Christian  times,  and  their 
•et  final  fulfilment  at  the  Second  Advent.' 

It  seems  better  that  we  should  not  try  to  be  wise  above  that  which 
5  written,  and  seek  for  a  point  from  which  to  precisely  reckon  the 
seventy  weeks,'  when  no  such  point  has  been  authoritatively 
ndicated  to  us. 


SECTION  III. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATED  TO  MATTERS  OF  RELIGION 
OR  THEOLOGY. 


INTRODUCTORY     NOTE. 

!T  has  not  been  an  easy  task  to  select  topics  for  this  section  which, 
vhile  fairly  representing  the  different  sources  of  difficulty  in  relation 
:o  religious  and  doctrinal  matters,  would  preserve  the  strictly  unsec- 
arian  and  uncontroversial  character  of  this  work.  Our  readers  may 
3e  reminded,  that  this  book  has  been  prepared  with  a  view  to  pre- 
senting suggestively  the  materials  on  which  a  reasonable  judgment 
:an  be  formed.  From  beginning  to  end  no  dogmatic  statement  is 
nade.  As  far  as  possible,  correct  information  is  given,  and  good 
opinions  are  stated ;  but  there  are  no  theories  advocated  ;  and  it  is 
loped  that  no  strife  will  be  excited  by  it.  On  the  great  Biblical 
questions  every  man  should  be  '  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.' 
But  to  be  so  persuaded  he  should  have  good  and  sufficient  materials 
at  his  command,  on  which  his  judgment  may  be  wisely  formed. 

This  section  must,  of  necessity,  deal  with  some  controversial  sub- 
jects, but  it  only  touches  them  on  their  literary  and  scientific 
sides.  Our  point  of  view  is  limited  to  Bible  representations  and 
teachings,  and  we  have  no  concern  with  the  forms  and  settings  of 
doctrinal  opinion,  or  the  specialities  of  particular  sects. 

One  of  the  leading  principles  guiding  the  treatment  of  difficulties 
relating  to  religion  has  been  this — God  has  made  His  revelation  of 
religious  truth  to  men  in  advancing  stages,  and  we  have  no  right  to 
expect  the  advanced  forms  of  truth  in  the  lower  stages.  Much  con- 
fusion has  been  caused  by  the  attempt  to  discover,  in  the  Old  Testa- 

27 


418     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

ment  records  of  the  earlier,  limited,  and  preparatory  revelations,  the 
higher  results  of  the  Christian  revelation.  They  can  only  be  found 
as  the  oak-tree  can  be  said  to  be  found  in  the  acorn.  Both  in 
matters  of  morality  and  of  religion'we  have  to  accept  ideas  as  relativt 
to  their  age.  And  there  is  a  great  field  for  research  open  to  those 
who  can  fit  themselves  to  each  generation,  and,  without  prejudice 
reproduce  for  us  the  actual  moral  and  religious  notions  and  senti 
ments  of  Noah,  and  Abraham,  and  David,  and  Isaiah. 

We  may  reasonably  assume  that  the  underlying  truths — the  primar) 
truths  of  morality  and  religion — have  been  the  same  in  all  ages 
are,  indeed,  the  common  possession  of  humanity,  and  therefore  are 
found  at  the  basis  of  every  religion.  But  these  *  primary  truths '  car 
never  be  found  separate  from  the  national  or  individual  forms  whicr 
give  them  expression.  And  these  forms  are  always  relative  tc 
particular  times,  particular  countries,  and  particular  individuals.  The 
form  of  an  age,  or  of  a  nation,  or  of  a  man,  has  no  binding  force  ir 
any  other  age,  on  any  other  nation,  or  for  any  other  individual 
Each  man  may  claim  the  right  to  give  the  primary  truths  expressior 
in  forms  that  suit  his  own  genius.  This  distinction  between  trut) 
and  forms  of  truth  may  seem  to  many  but  a  subtle,  philosophica 
distinction,  but  it  is,  in  fact,  the  keynote  which  alone  enables  us  tc 
realize  the  harmony  of  God's  dealings  with  His  creatures  :  and  this 
distinction  should  be  kept  well  in  mind  when  studying  this  sectior 
on  'difficulties  related  to  religion.' 

Another  point  of  importance  is  the  recognition   of  the  fact  tha' 
ancient   religions,  outside    Hebraism,  influenced    both   the   Mosaic 
system  and  the  general  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Israel   more  thar 
is  usually  estimated.     The  notion  is  generally  entertained  that  th( 
Hebrews  were  a  people  under  the  direct  guidance  of  Jehovah,  ane 
their  entire  circle  of  thought,  sentiment,  association,  were  divineb 
arranged.     Of  course,  that  notion  will  not  bear  a  moment's  examina 
tion.     The  Hebrew  race  was  not  like  a  clean  sheet  of  paper  whicl 
God  took,   that   He  might  write  upon  it  what  He  pleased.      Th< 
sheet  was  already  written  on  when  He  separated  it  for  His  purposes 
There  were  relics  of  Chaldee  association  through  Abraham  ;  relics  o 
Syrian  association  through  Jacob's  residence  with   Laban ;  distinc 
impressions  of  tribal  customs,  such  as  that  of  the  *  blood-avenger 
relics  of  association  with  Egypt ;  and  manifest  signs  of  the  influena 
on  the  race  of  the   '  mixt   multitude '  that  came    with   them  fron 
Egypt ;  of  the  older  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  with  whom  they  mingled 
and  of  the  immediately  surrounding  heathen  nations.     It  may,  there 
fore,  often  be  that  the  explanation  of  a  religious  difficulty  is  found  b} 


THE  DIVINE  IMAGE  IN  MAN.  419 

'stacking  the  older  association,  which  may  have  strangely  distorted  the 
ctual  Jehovah  revelation. 

The  study  of  Comparative  Religions  has  brought  to  light  many 
urious  and  instructive  things  connected  with  the  earlier  forms  of 
eligious  thought  and  rite ;  and  it  is  likely  to  prove  of  unspeakable 
alue,  by  aiding  us  to  discover  what  the  primary  and  universal 
eligious  truths  for  humanity  are.  It  will  not  fail  to  bring  out  very 
Drcibly  the  fact,  that  Christianity  is  the  flower  and  crown  of  the 
eligions  of  humanity,  the  last  and  the  most  perfect  expression  of  the 
>rimary  and  essential  truths. 


The   Divine    Image   in   Man. 

GENESIS  i.  27  :  '  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
reated  he  him  ;  male  and  female  created  he  them.' 

Difficulty. —  Wliat  God's  image  is  we  do  not  know,  so  it  would 
eem  hopeless  to  seek  for  the  image  in  man. 

Explanation. — It  is  evident  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
vritten  for  those  who  have,  independently  of  it,  the  knowledge  of 
jod.  To  tell  the  first  created  beings  that  they  were  made  'in  the  image 
)f  God '  could  have  conveyed  no  idea  to  their  minds,  because  they 
lad  no  figure  of  God,  and  no  ideas  of  God's  being  and  nature,  from 
vhich  any  likeness  of  man  to  God  could  be  apprehended.  What- 
ever view  may  be  taken  of  the  origin  of  the  chapter — whether  we  see 
n  it  direct  revelation,  selection  of  documents,  or  early  legend — it  is 
:ertain  that  Moses  presents  the  record  to  those  who  had  extensive 
knowledge  of  God,  and  such  belief  in  Him  as  enabled  them  to  yield 
hemselves  to  His  guidance.  Ideas  of  God  had  come  to  the  Hebrew 
•ace  through  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  for  God  even  fixes  His 
lame  for  that  race  as  the  *  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,'  send- 
ng  the  Hebrew  to  the  record  of  Jehovah's  dealings  with  the 
matriarchs  for  adequate  apprehensions  of  Jehovah  Himself. 

We  ought,  therefore,  to  inquire  not  what  was  the  '  image  of  God ' 
is  Adam  could  apprehend  it;  nor  what  was  the  'image  of  God'  as 
Christians  can  apprehend  it,  who  see  in  Jesus  the  '  brightness  of  the 
Father's  glory,  and  express  image  of  His  person,'  but  what  was  the 
image  of  God '  as  the  Jew  could  apprehend  it  in  the  time  of  Moses. 

And  we  should  take  into  due  consideration  the  fact,  that  as  man's 
first  knowledge  is  the  apprehension  of  himself,  he  cannot  help 
making  himself  the  measure  of  all  things,  and  even  the  measure  of 
3od.  And  so  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  Divine  declaration,  '  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image,'  is  rather  a  help  to  man  to  understand 

27—2 


420      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

God  than  an  aid  to  man  to  understand  himself.  It  is  only  after  mai 
has  come  to  know  God  that  he  can  come  to  the  higher  understanding 
of  himself. 

As  we  neither  have  any  authorized  representation  of  the  person  o 
God,  nor  are  allowed  to  make  any  figure  or  likeness  of  Him,  it  is  no 
possible  for  us  to  say  that  man's  bodily  form,  arrangement  of  limbs 
or  even  sense  endowments  and  mental  capacities,  are  the  image  o 
God.  Some  have,  indeed,  suggested  that  man  is  like  God  in  hi 
erectness.  God  is  a  spiritual  being,  and  we  must  not  limit  Him  t< 
any  material  form ;  and  man's  likeness  to  Him  must  be  man's  like 
ness  as  a  spiritual  being — a  character — not  as  a  material  form. 

God  is  a  Spirit.  Man  is  a  Spirit.  The  image  of  God  in  man  is  t< 
be  found  in  this  common  spiritual  nature. 

In  '  The  Age  of  the  Great  Patriarchs,'  pp.  60-66,  this  point  is  full; 
presented.  From  it  we  take  the  principal  suggestions.  '  To  under 
stand  what  is  the  likeness  of  God  on  man  we  must  plainly  get  som< 
fitting  idea  of  God,  and  of  what  may  be  regarded  as  essential  to  Hin 
and  characteristic  of  Him.  Keeping  our  attention  fixed  on  the  grea 
work  of  Creation,  as  recorded  in  Genesis  i.,  we  find  that  four  con 
ceptions  of  God  are  necessary  :  (i)  We  must  think  of  Him  as  ai 
Intelligent  Being.  Creation  everywhere  bears  the  marks  of  design 
and  shows  the  energy  and  the  skilful  adaptations  of  the  designin: 
mind.  Modern  knowledge  is  in  great  part  the  discovery  of  th 
various  ends  and  purposes  which  the  great  intelligent  Creator  ha( 
from  the  first  in  view.  A  great  Master-mind  ;  and  it  is  such  a  min< 
as  we  can  in  part  apprehend  ;  in  its  workings  we  can  trace  th 
powers  of  imagination,  judgment,  foresight,  and  reasoning.  (2)  W 
must  conceive  of  God  as  a  being  having  a  free  and  independen 
will.  The  decisions  of  His  intelligence  become  the  choices  of  Hi 
will.  There  is  not  the  faintest  suggestion  of  any  being  at  the  bac 
of  God,  by  whose  opinion  He  is  for  one  moment  influenced,  or  o 
whom  He  is  in  the  least  degree  dependent.  (3)  We  must  conceiv 
of  God  as  a  being  of  active  power  and  authority.  The  story  of  th 
Creation  is  a  record  of  the  combinations  and  separations,  and  mod 
fications  of  the  elements,  by  One  whose  authority  all  natural  force 
obeyed.  Clearly  God  is  a  spiritual  Being,  a  Will,  related  to  matte 
in  a  way  of  authority  and  control.  (4)  We  should  further  think  < 
God  as  a  Moral  Being,  with  a  conception  of  good,  of  right,  toward 
which  He  is  ever  working.  Each  day  of  the  Creation  we  find  Hii 
looking  upon  His  work  and  saying :  "  It  is  good."  In  saying  on] 
this  much  about  God  as  a  Moral  Being,  it  should  be  remembere 
that  we  are  only  trying  to  find  how  much  may  be  learned  of  Go 


THE  DIVINE  IMAGE  IN  MAN.  421 

rom  the  Creation.  Four  things  form  our  first  conception  of  God  : 
ntelligence,  Free  Will,  Authority,  and  a  Moral  Nature.  If  these  are 
jod,  and  God  has  impressed  the  image  of  Himself  on  man,  then  we 
mght  to  be  able  to  find  clear  traces  of  these  four  things  on  man. 

'  To  see  the  likeness  of  God  in  man  we  must  bring  forth  the  repre- 
entative  man,  the  first  Adam.  Yet  even  in  him  we  must  not  look 
or  too  much.  We  shall  find  only  a  faint  image,  a  minute  copy  of 
he  Divine,  a  small  photograph.  Man  is  an  image  in  the  sense  in 
yhich  we  call  a  child  the  image  of  his  father.  It  is  but  a  little  image. 
.  .  None  but  God  Himself  can  adequately  represent  His  own  fulness 
)f  glorious  attribute  and  holy  rectitude.  That  other  thing  must  be 
i  God  with  God  who  could  take  in  and  apprehend  the  full  glories  of 
rLis  nature. 

'  Can  we  see  any  likeness  of  the  Divine  Intelligence  in  Man  ? 
Purely  we  can.  Intelligence  is  one  of  the  essentials  of  humanity, 
)ne  of  the  things  most  evidently  dividing  man  from  all  the  lower 
brms  of  life.  Adam  was  capable  of  receiving  Divine  communica- 
ions ;  was  able  to  select  and  pronounce  names  for  all  the  creatures 
jy  which  he  was  surrounded ;  had  a  mind  with  due  powers  of 
magination,  reasoning,  and  judgment.  In  that  intelligence  we  find 
he  first  impress  of  the  image  of  God.  Can  we  see  any  image  of  the 
Divine  Free-Will  in  man  ?  In  a  sense  man  is  complete,  can  stand 
done,  may  guide  his  own  course,  has  power  over  his  own  movements, 
^oes  forth  in  Creation  in  a  sense  a  God,  bearing  the  image  of  God. 
Can  we  see  any  image  of  the  Divine  Activity  and  Authority? 
Adam  was  set  in  the  garden  to  work ;  not  to  be  a  passive  figure,  but 
co  find  out  the  exceeding  joy  of  intelligent  work.  .  .  .  The  various 
powers  of  Nature  are  put  within  his  control,  the  various  living  things 
are  made  subject  to  his  authority.  But,  above  all,  can  we  see  any 
image  in  Adam  of  God  as  a  Moral  Being  ?  In  this  lies  man's  dis- 
tinguishing peculiarity.  Adam  stands  apart  from  all  the  lower 
animals  in  the  possession  of  a  Moral  Sense.  By  virtue  of  this  he 
:omes  out  of  the  animal  class  of  beings,  and  is  reckoned  in  the  God- 
class  of  beings.  This  is  the  same  thing  as  to  say  he  is  a  soul ;  he  has 
the  power  of  knowing  right  and  wrong  ;  he  can  be  righteous.  As  a 
moral  being  he  has  yet  something  more  of  the  Divine  image,  for  he 
was  started  on  his  career  in  harmony  with  God ;  the  very  image  of 
God's  sublime  idea  of  right,  truth,  and  good  was  put  upon  him. 
"God  made  man  upright."  Good.  Feeling  the  beauty  of  good. 
Loving  good.  Seeking  good.  Here,  too,  only  an  imperfect  image 
of  God.  Man's  goodness  only  a  derived  goodness,  and  so  unstable ; 
God's  goodness  absolute,  eternal,  unchangeable.' 


422      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Psalmist  Hopes  of  Immortality. 

PSALM  xvi.  10  (Rev.  Ver.}  :  '  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  to  Sheol ;  neithei 
wilt  thou  suffer  thine  holy  one  to  see  corruption.'  Marg.  '  the  pit.' 

PSALM  xvii.  15  (Rev.  Ver.} :  As  for  me,  I  shall  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness  : 
I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake,  with  thy  likeness.' 

Question. — Does  David  here  represent  the  ideas  of  his  age,  or 
must  we  think  of  him  as  spiritually  in  advance  of  them  ? 

Answer. — It  may  reasonably  be  held  that  the  religious  and  the 
poetical  genius  of  David  set  him  above  his  contemporaries,  and  made 
him  a  leader  in  religious  thought;  one  of  those  men  whom  God 
raises  up,  again  and  again  in  the  world's  history,  to  lift  up  the  entire 
plane  of  spiritual  conceptions  :  and  yet  it  must  be  seen  that  David 
could  but  lift  thought  one  step,  and  could  in  no  way  anticipate  the 
higher  ideas  of  the  later  and  Christian  revelation.  We  may  see  the 
germ  and  beginning  of  the  Christian  conception  of  immortality  ir 
his  Psalms,  but  we  should  look  for  no  more  than  hints  and  hopes. 

It  is  thought  that  the  Mosaic  system,  being  one  of  duties,  punish- 
ments, and  rewards,  strictly  limited  to  this  life,  tended  to  crush  al! 
notions  of  immortality,  and  it  certainly  is  strange  to  find  that  the  life 
to  come  is  never  used  as  an  incentive  to  moral  goodness  under  that 
system.  But  we  should  keep  in  mind  that  the  Mosaic  system  is 
only  understood  as  we  see  it  to  be  an  earthly  and  material  picture  ol 
spiritual  truths,  relations,  and  duties.  As  illustration  it  is  properl} 
confined  to  the  earthly  sphere. 

Confusion  is  often  made  by  losing  sight  of  the  fact  that  God'j 
education  of  the  world  proceeds  by  stages,  and  that  no  earlier  stage 
anticipates  a  later.  New  Testament  doctrines  concerning  the  nature 
of  man,  and  concerning  the  future  for  man,  could  not  have  beer 
conceived  by  the  religious  mind  in  the  lower  stages  :  and  when  we 
put  refined  Christian  ideas  into  the  words  of  patriarch,  or  king,  O] 
prophet,  we  would  do  well  to  remember  that  they  are  our  ideas,  anc 
cannot  be  conceived  as  the  thoughts  and  notions  of  those  whc 
actually  wrote  the  words.  The  '  genius '  of  each  age  anticipates  the 
next  age,  but  he  does  not  anticipate  a  score  of  ages  on.  And  the 
Divine  inspiration  given  to  each  man  is  always  relative  to  that  precise 
work  which  he  is  called  to  do. 

How  much,  then,  .can  we  think  to  have  been  in  the  Psalmist's  mine 
when  he  penned  these  words?  We  are  not  now  considering  the 
Messianic  or  prophetic  character  of  them,  but  their  relation  to  the 
actual  beliefs  of  David. 

The  keynote  of  the  psalm  is  found  in  the  first  words  of  it — '  Pre- 


PSALMIST  HOPES  OF  IMMORTALITY.  423 

;erve  me,  O  God.'     The  Psalmist  was  exposed  to  some  special  peril 

•vhich  threatened  his  life.     No  hint  is  given  concerning  the  causes  of 

:his  peril,  unless  we  find  something  in  verse  4,  which  seems  to  be  an 

utterance  of  strong  feeling  against  active  enemies.     He  rejoices  in 

Peasant  circumstances  and  surroundings,  and  yet  fears  that  these 

enemies  mean  to  compass  his  death.     The  situation  of  the  psalm 

;nay  be  illustrated  by  that  of  a  king  who  seems  to  be  in  happy  cir- 

:umstances,  and  yet  he  has  reason  to  suspect  that  someone  in  the 

:ourt  is  watching  the  opportunity  to  poison  him.     Conceive  such 

i   condition,   and    associate  it  with   pious    David,  and    the   psalm 

becomes  his  turning  to  God  for  defence,  and  the  expression  of  his 

confidence  that  God  would  preserve  him,  and  not  let  these  foes 

succeed  in  bringing  him  to  the  grave.     God's  presence  would  be  to 

him  a  sure  defence.     To  recognise  this  as  the  first  association  of  the 

psalm,  is  in  no   sense   to    deny  or  underestimate  its  further  and 

Messianic  suggestions  ;  but  it  does  remove  the  strain,  under  which 

we  seem  to  lie,  of  finding  later  notions  of  immortality  in  so  early  an 

age.    Jennings  and  Lowe  support  this  explanation  of  the  psalm,  when 

they  say  :  '  To  "  see  the  pit "  is  the  opposite  of  "  seeing  life,"  that  is, 

experiencing  and  enjoying  it ;  and  thus  really  means  to  succumb  to 

the  state  of  the  grave,  i.e.,  death.     Thus  all  that  is  implied  in  this 

verse  is,  that  the  Psalmist,  in  that  he  has  Jehovah  at  his  right  hand, 

is  confident  that  he  shall  escape  death,  that  is,  probably,  the  violent 

death  with  which  his  adversaries  menace  him.' 

Delitzsch  takes  the  same  general  view  of  the  psalm.  *  The  writer 
is  in  danger  of  death,  as  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  prayer  expressed 
in  verse  i  and  the  expectation  in  verse  10.  But  there  is  no  trace  of 
anything  like  bitter  complaint,  gloomy  conflict,  or  hard  struggle :  the 
cry  for  help  is  immediately  swallowed  up  by  an  overpowering  and 
blessed  consciousness  and  a  bright  hope.'  '  It  is  the  hope  of  "  not 
dying  "  that  is  expressed  by  David  in  verse  10.'  '  David,  the  anointed 
of  God,  looking  upon  himself  as  in  Jahve,  the  God  who  has  given 
the  promise,  becomes  the  prophet  of  Christ ;  but  this  is  only  in- 
directly, for  he  speaks  of  himself,  and  what  he  says  has  also  been 
fulfilled  in  his  own  person.  But  this  fulfilment  is  not  limited  to  the 
condition  that  he  did  not  succumb  to  any  peril  that  threatened  his 
life  so  long  as  the  kingship  would  have  perished  with  him,  and  that 
when  he  died  the  kingship  nevertheless  remained.' 

A  striking  illustration  of  this  psalm  may  be  found  in  the  story  of 
Hezekiah's  perilous  illness,  and  the  prayer  of  Hezekiah  may  be  com- 
pared with  this  psalm. 

On   the   general  question  of  man's  immortality,  Professor  Agar 


424      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Beet  makes  an  unusually  interesting  and  important  suggestion  :  *  We 
have  already  found  reason  to  believe  that  the  intelligence  and  the 
moral  sense  of  man  were  not  produced  by  the  operation  of  natural 
forces,  but  by  the  inbreathing  of  a  higher  life  into  a  body  closely 
related  to  the  bodies  of  animals.  Only  thus  can  we  account  for  the 
impassable  line  separating  the  lowest  men  from  the  highest  animals. 
If  so,  we  can  well  conceive  the  author  of  this  higher  life  promising  to 
His  new-born  creature,  man,  that  if  he  were  loyal  to  the  guidance  of 
this  new  and  nobler  life  he  should  escape  from  the  doom  of  death  to 
which  all  lower  animals  were  subject.  Certainly,  He  who  was  able 
to  breathe  into  bodily  form  this  spiritual  life  was  able  to  guard  it, 
even  in  a  body  of  flesh,  from  the  stroke  of  death.  And  I  may 
venture  to  suggest,  in  view  of  the  close  relation  between  men  and 
animals,  that,  had  man  been  faithful  in  his  day  of  trial,  his  victory 
would  possibly  have  reacted  on  the  animal  kingdom,  and  have 
rescued  it  from  its  ancient  doom.  Man  obeyed  the  impulses  he  had 
in  common  with  animals ;  and  thus  sank  to  their  level  of  mortality/ 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  sees  in  this  psalm  the  recognition  of 
the  tripartite  division  of  human  nature,  on  which  alone  the  true  idea 
of  immortality  can  be  made  to  rest.  '  The  heart,  as  the  seat  of  the 
understanding  ;  the  soul,  as  the  abode  of  spiritual  instincts ;  and  the 
flesh,  or  body.' 

Sacrifices  unto  Devils. 

LEVITICUS  xvii.  7  :  '  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto  devils, 
after  whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring.'  Rev.  Ver.  '  He-goats.' 

Question. — Does  this  refer  to  some  specially  offensive  form  of 
idolatry  ;  or  are  idols  generally  called  by  this  as  a  scornful  name  ? 

Answer. — The  Hebrew  word  which  is  here  translated  '  devils ' 
(seirim)  precisely  means  '  hairy '  or  '  shaggy  goats,'  and  then  it  may 
stand  for  goat-like  deities,  or  demons.  Dr.  Ginsburg  gives  the 
association  which  probably  explains  the  allusion  in  this  text : 

'  The  Egyptians,  and  other  nations  of  antiquity,  worshipped  goats 
as  gods.  Not  only  was  there  a  celebrated  temple  in  Thmuis,  the 
capital  of  the  Mendesian  Nomos  in  Lower  Egypt,  dedicated  to  the 
goat  image  Pan,  whom  they  called  Mendes,  and  worshipped  as  the 
oracle,  and  as  the  fertilizing  principle  in  nature,  but  they  erected 
statues  of  him  everywhere.  Hence  the  Pan,  Silenus,  Satyrs,  Fauns, 
and  the  woodland  gods  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans ;  and  hence, 
too,  the  goat-like  form  of  the  devil,  with  a  tail,  horns,  and  cloven 
feet,  which  obtain  in  mediaeval  Christianity,  and  which  may  still  be 
seen  in  some  European  cities.  The  terror  which  the  devil,  appear- 


SACRIFICES  UNTO  DEVILS.  425 

ing  in  this  Pan-like  form,  created  among  those  who  were  thought  to 
have  seen  him,  has  given  rise  to  our  expression  panic.  This  is  the 
form  of  idolatrous  worship  which  the  Jews  brought  with  them  from 
Egypt,  and  to  which  reference  is  continually  made.  (See  Josh.  xxiv.  14  ; 
Ezek.  xx.  7;  xxiii.  3,  etc.;  and  especially  2  Chron.  xi.  15.)  The 
expression  "  and  they  shall  no  more  offer  "  shows  that  the  Israelites 
were  hitherto  in  the  habit  of  first  dedicating  their  ordinary  food  to 
these  deities  ;  whilst  the  words  "  gone  a  whoring  "  indicate  the  orgies 
connected  with  this  form  of  idol  worship.  .  .  .  The  ancient  Israelites, 
like  the  modern  Orientals,  especially  the  nomadic  tribes,  ate  very 
little  flesh  meat  apart  from  the  seasons  of  sacrifice,  which  were  the 
occasions  of  feasting.' 

It  is  suggested  that  the  term  c  devils '  might  be  rendered  *  to  the 
evil  spirits  of  the  desert.'  Luther  translates,  *  to  field  -  devils.' 
Evidently  the  Israelites  were  at  this  time  tempted  to  invest  the 
taking  of  the  life  of  animals  for  food  with  some  kind  of  idolatrous 
associations. 

Grave  mistakes  must  be  made  if  we  persist  in  bringing  our 
developed  notions  of  a  hierarchy  of  evil  spirits  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and  persist  in  fixing  Christian  associations  and  ideas  to  every  case  in 
which  the  word  '  devil '  is  used.  The  proper  help  to  understanding 
such  Old  Testament  terms  is  to  be  found  in  the  knowledge  and 
sentiment  of  Old  Testament  times;  and  we  must  not  forget  how 
much  mediaeval  superstition  and  Miltonic  poetry  have  coloured  our 
notions  of  a  personal  Diabolus.  It  is  safest  to  understand  the  word 
'  devils,'  as  used  scornfully  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  figure  of 
idolatry  and  its  degrading  rites.  In  the  particular  case  now  before 
us  it  is  clear  that  a  specially  sensual  form  of  goat- worship  is  re- 
ferred to. 

A  Form  like  the  Son  of  God. 

DANIEL  iii.  25 :  '  He  answered  and  said,  Lo,  I  see  four  men  loose,  walking  in 
the  midst  of  the  fire,  and  they  have  no  hurt ;  and  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  the 
Son  of  God.' 

Question. —  What  idea  of  the  l  Son  of  God''  can  we  suppose  Nebu- 
chadnezzar to  have  had  ? 

Answer. — It  is  simply  inconceivable  that  a  Babylonian  king 
could  have  attached  the  meaning  to  the  term  *  Son  of  God '  which  is 
familiar  to  us,  who  understand  by  it  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Divine  Trinity.  The  association  of  Christ  with  the 
visionary  figure,  seen  by  the  king  in  the  fire,  could  never  have  been 
made  but  for  a  lack  of  precision  in  the  translation  of  the  term. 


426      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Hengstenberg,  Zockler,  Keil,  Rose,  Fuller,  and  others,  propose  to 
render  it  *  a  son  of  the  gods ;'  Hitzig  and  Ewald  prefer  '  a  son  of 
God,'  in  the  sense  of  an  '  angel.' 

The  early  Patristic  explanation  was  that  the  person  whom  the  king 
saw  was  none  other  than  Christ  Himself.  So  Tertullian,  Justin 
Martyr,  Hilary,  etc.  But  they  were  misled  by  not  observing,  that 
there  is  no  definite  article,  and  the  phrase  is  '  a  Son  of  God,'  and  not 
'  the  Son  of  God,'  which  could  only  be  properly  applied  to  Christ. 
'  A  Son  of  God  '  is  a  figure  of  speech,  meaning  '  a  noble  or  god-like 
person.' 

A  fresh,  and  very  suggestive  and  interesting,  explanation  is  given 
by  Archdeacon  Rose.  '  It  was  the  language  of  one  educated  in,  and 
familiar  with,  the  Babylonian  belief  in  gods.  From  the  union  of  Bel 
and  Mylitta  had  sprung  up  a  divine  progeny  of  "sons,  "and  one  of  those 
divine  visitors  had  vouchsafed  to  appear  now,  an  "  angel  "  (lit.  "  mes- 
senger," verse  28)  of  deliverance  to  Shadrach  and  his  fellows.  The 
inscriptions  offer  numerous  examples  of  kings  calling  a  particular 
god  and  goddess  their  father  and  mother  ;  Assurbanipal,  for  instance, 
calls  himself  the  progeny  of  Assur  and  Beltis :  the  name  Bar  (son) 
is  given  to  a  god ;  and  there  was  a  "  god  of  fire."  ' 

'  It  is  possible  to  identify  this  "  son  of  the  gods  "  more  closely  still. 
In  the  old  Accadian  books  of  magic,  Fire  is  the  god  Iz-Bar,  the  god 
"who  lifts  up  himself  on  high,  the  great  chief  who  extends  the 
supreme  power  of  the  god  of  heaven."  Under  those  titles  he  is 
regarded  as  the  fire  of  the  Kosmos  everywhere  present  in  Nature, 
at  once  necessary  to  life,  and  exhibiting  his  brilliancy  in  the  stars. 
The  name  Iz-Bar  will  recall  to  the  student  of  the  Babylonian  deluge 
tablet  the  name  of  the  hero,  Iz-dhu-bar  (mass  of  fire),  who  plays  a 
principal  part  in  that  ancient  epic.  In  an  incantation  of  sixty  versicles 
directed  against  the  ravages  of  the  "seven  spirits  of  the  abyss,"  the 
god  Fire  is  described  as  approaching  Silik-moulou-khi  (the  mediator 
with  the  supreme  god  Hea),  and  expressing  to  him  the  prayers  of  the 
petitioners.  Silik-moulou-khi  hears  the  prayer,  and  lays  it  before  his 
father  Hea.  In  a  religious  system  which  laid  so  much  stress  on  the 
worship  of  the  elements,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  Fire  adored  as  a 
real  material  substance,  superior  as  a  god  even  to  the  sun  itself. 
Hence  he  is  invoked  as  the  great  disperser  of  witchcrafts,  and  the 
hero  who  puts  evil  spirits  to  flight.  Universal  peace,  and  especially 
freedom  from  the  attacks  of  malignant  demons,  are  considered 
ensured  to  a  land  under  this  god's  protection.  The  sacrificial  flame 
was  adored  as  enshrining  his  presence,  hence  he  bore  the  title  of 
"  the  supreme  high  priest  on  the  surface  of  the  earth ;"  while  the 


A  FORM  LIKE  THE  SON  OF  GOD.  427 

trustful  simple  people  recognised  in  the  flame  which  burnt  on  the 
domestic  hearth  that  tutelary  power  which  protected  house  and  home 
from  harmful  influences. 

'^rtr-Elohin,  i.e.,  Bar-Ili,  is  the  name  which  Nebuchadnezzar  gives 
him  in  this  verse,  and  it  would  perhaps  be  a  better  translation  to 
render  his  words  either  "  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  Bar-Elohin" 
or,  "like  Bar  of  the  gods."  The  king  saw  in  that  flame  fed  by 
human  sacrifice  the  greatest  and  most  active  of  the  gods  with  whom 
the  priest  had  direct  communication  by  sacred  rites  and  magic  in- 
cantations :  and  he  recognised  the  intervention  in  favour  of  his 
victims.' 

Robjohns,  in  '  Daniel,  Statesman  and  Prophet,'  argues  for  a  real 
identification  of  this  fourth  figure  with  the  *  Angel-Jehovah  ;'  but  he 
makes  the  following  admission,  which  takes  all  the  force  out  of  his 
argument :  '  The  king's  words  do  not  necessarily  refer  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Their  natural,  obvious  meaning  points  in  another  direction. 
"  Son  of  gods,"  or  "  Son  of  the  gods,"  would  be  a  phrase  applicable 
to  anyone  supposed  in  character  or  mien  to  resemble  those  whose 
dwelling  is  not  with  flesh.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar knew  anything  of  an  expected  Messiah.  Even  if  he  had, 
he  would  scarcely  have  called  him  the  Son  of  God ;  since,  however 
familiar  the  name  to  us,  there  is  no  evidence  that  at  that  time  the 
name  was  given  to  Messiah,  even  by  the  Jews.  Whether  this  was  or 
was  not  the  Christ,  it  is  clear  that  all  that  the  king  meant  was  to 
describe  the  fourth  walking  in  the  fire  as  like  unto  a  son  of  the 
gods.' 

Dr.  W.  T.  Taylor  says  :  *  When  we  give  the  words  their  literal 
translation,  "  the  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  a  son  of  the  gods,"  we 
see  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  speaking  like  a  heathen,  and  meant 
only  to  describe  the  dignified  and  exalted  deportment  of  him  whom 
he  thus  characterized.' 


David's   Idea   of  Original   Sin. 

PSALM  li.  5  :  '  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity  ;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 


conceive  me. 


Difficulty. — //  does  not  easily  appear  how  the  wrong-doing  of  a 
man's  mother  can  be  charged,  as  guilt,  to  him. 

Explanation. — Two  things  require  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion in  fairly  estimating  this  intense  expression  :  (i)  Easterns,  in  times 
of  passion,  are  wont  to  inveigh  against  the  mothers  of  those  with  whom 
they  are  angry ;  and  are  exceedingly  foul  in  the  references  they  make 


428      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

to  them.  (2)  There  is  much  uncertainty  as  to  who  David's  mother 
was,  and  the  kind  of  relation  in  which  she  stood  to  Jesse. 

Dean  Stanley  tells  us  that  '  the  name  and  origin  of  David's  mother 
is  wrapt  in  mystery.  Zeruiah  and  Abigail,  though  called  in  i  Chron. 
ii.  1 6  sisters  of  David,  are  not  expressly  called  the  daughters  of  Jesse; 
and  Abigail,  in  2  Sam.  xvii.  25,  is  called  the  daughter  of  Nahash. 
It  would  almost  seem  as  if  David's  mother  had  been  the  wife  or  con- 
cubine of  Nahash  (the  later  Rabbis  represent  David  as  born  in 
adultery,  the  earlier  Rabbis  make  Nahash  to  be  another  name 
for  Jesse),  and  then  married  to  Jesse.  This  would  agree  with  the 
fact  that  her  daughters,  David's  sisters,  were  older  than  the  rest  of  the 
family,  and  also  (if  Nahash  was  the  same  as  the  King  of  Ammon) 
with  the  kindnesses  which  David  received  first  from  Nahash  and 
then  from  Shobi  his  son.' 

Jennings  and  Lowe  notice  that  the  words  '  in  iniquity '  and  'in  sin  ' 
are  predicated  of  his  parent,  not  of  himself.  They  are,  in  fact,  con- 
nected with  the  notion  that  the  act  of  coition  necessarily  involves 
impurity.  This  verse  therefore  intimates  that  man  has  his  very 
origin  in  sin,  a  view  expressed  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament  so 
definitely. 

Probably  it  is  wrong  to  press  unduly  what  is  really  a  poetical  and 
almost  a  passionate  expression  of  strong  feeling.  David  has  been 
aroused  to  a  sense  of  his  sin,  and  was  more  especially  affected  by  the 
revelation  of  his  sensual  disposition.  He  seems  to  have  broken 
loose,  in  these  ways,  when  Michal,  the  wife  of  his  early  love,  was 
taken  from  him  ;  and,  gathering  round  him  wife  after  wife,  gave  way 
to  bodily  passions  until  they  gained  the  mastery  of  him,  and  made 
him  helpless  to  resist  when  opportunity  for  wrong  doing,  through 
self-indulgence,  came  in  his  way.  In  his  penitent  frame  he  was 
utterly  ashamed  of  his  moral  weakness,  and  could  only  find  the  same 
sort  of  excuse  that  we  still  find,  and  say  it  was  '  human  nature.'  He 
felt  that  the  sensual  inclination  was  a  part  of  him,  and,  in  Eastern 
fashion,  shifts  the  responsibility  of  giving  him  this  evil  disposition 
upon  his  mother.  This  reference  to  her  would  have  a  special  point 
if  she  had  left  one  husband  and  taken  up  with  another. 

The  sin  of  his  mother  could  not  be  his  sin ;  but  the  disposition 
which  led  his  mother  to  sin  might  be  passed  on  to  him,  and  lead 
him  to  sin.  There  is  hereditary  passing  of  dispositions  and 
tendencies,  as  we  still  have  abundant  proofs  around  us;  but  we 
need  to  be  careful  in  using  the  term  sin  in  relation  to  them.  What- 
ever a  man's  hereditary  bias  may  be,  he  is  not  chargeable  with  sin 
until  he  acts  upon  a  decision  of  his  own  will. 


THE  CAIN  AND  ABEL  OFFERINGS.  429 

The  Cain  and  Abel  Offerings. 

GENESIS  iv.  3,  4  :  '  And  in  process  of  time  it  came  to  pass,  that  Cain  brought  of 
the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto  the  Lord.  And  Abel  he  also  brought  of  the 
firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  of  the  fat  thereof.' 

Difficulty. —  On  the  face  of  the  record  there  seems  no  reason  why 
these  offerings  should  have  been  so  differently  received. 

Explanation. — The  fact  may  be  fairly  and  fully  recognised  that, 
regarded  as  offerings,  Cain's  offering  was  every  way  as  good  as  Abel's : 
and  it  bore  precisely  the  same  relation  to  his  daily  life  and  labour. 

It  may  be,  as  is  suggested  by  some  writers,  that  Abel  brought 
his  offering  in  a  better  spirit  than  Cain  did.  It  may  be,  as  others 
suggest,  that  the  expression  used  concerning  Abel's  offering,  '  and  of 
the  fat  thereof,'  indicates  a  careful  selection,  in  order  to  bring  his 
best  to  God,  and  is  intended  to  contrast  with  Cain's  merely  bringing 
what  came  first  to  hand,  'of  the  fruit  of  the  ground.'  But  there  is 
another  explanation,  to  which  due  consideration  should  be  given. 
In  the  bringing  of  these  offerings  by  the  two  brothers  we  may  have 
instances  of  i?istinctive  religion  ;  &\-\&  in  the  method  of  the  Divine 
treatment  of  these  offerings,  and  in  the  results  of  that  treatment,  we 
have  instinctive  religion  guided,  lifted  up  on  a  higher  plane,  developed 
through  a  manifestation  or  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will.  Then  we 
see  no  sign  of  any  divine  ill-will  towards  Cain,  but  the  assertion  of 
the  truth,  that  the  acceptableness  of  an  offering  depends,  not  on  the 
character  or  quality  of  the  offering  itself,  but  on  the  state  of  mind  and 
heart  towards  God  of  the  offerer.  From  this  point  of  view  it  may  be 
urged  that,  if  Abel's  mind  and  feeling  had  been  in  Cain's  offering  it 
would  have  been  accepted,  or  rather  he  would  have  been  accepted 
through  it. 

Many  are  able  to  find  the  ground  for  the  approval  of  Abel's  offer- 
ing in  his  bringing  a  creature  with  blood  or  life  in  it  \  but  the  narra- 
tive gives  no  hint  that  Abel's  lamb  was  slain  as  a  sacrifice.  We 
import  that  idea  into  the  narrative  from  our  later  and  higher  knowledge. 

We  have  found  the  treatment  of  this  subject  easily  rouses  strong 
party  feeling,  and  have  therefore  offered  our  suggestion  in  the  most 
tentative  way  ;  asking  for  it  no  more  consideration  than  it  may  fairly 
demand.  It  may  be  the  line  on  which  a  successful  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  '  offerings,'  and  so  of  '  sacrifices,'  may  be  made. 

Dean  Payne  Smith  says :  *  We  must  be  careful  not  to  introduce 
here  any  of  the  later  Levitical  ideas  about  sacrifice.  All  that  we 
know  about  this  offering  is  that  it  was  an  act  of  worship,  and 
apparently  something  unusual.  Now,  each  brought  of  his  own  pro- 
duce, and  one  was  accepted  and  one  rejected.' 


430      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

A  recent  writer  puts  the  matter  in  the  following  way  :  c  Cain  and 
Abel,  as  fallen  creatures,  made  an  effort  to  construct  a  religion,  or  to 
find  satisfactory  and  acceptable  religious  rites.  They  were  born  after 
Adam  and  Eve  had  sinned,  lost  their  purity,  their  paradise,  and  the 
gracious  communings  of  their  God.  These  sons  of  Adam  had  no 
direct  knowledge  of  God.  All  they  knew  of  God,  and  the  lost  garden, 
they  must  have  learned  from  their  father,  who  was  to  them  mediator 
and  priest.  Plainly  they  did  know  of  God,  and  their  dependent 
relations  with  Him.  The  knowledge  of  God  has  never  been  lost  from 
the  race,  and  so  it  has  never  been  made  the  subject  of  a  book-revela- 
tion ;  the  Scriptures  never  attempt  to  prove  that  God  is,  they  only 
declare  what  He  is,  and  what  He  does. 

In  the  two  men,  Cain  and  Abel,  we  have  the  models  of  the  two 
classes  into  which  the  world  has  ever  been  divided.  In  Abel  we 
have  the  soul  struggling  for  restored  harmony,  seeking  to  gain  its 
restored  rights.  In  bringing  his  offering  he  conquered  so  far  as  to 
make  his  bodily  gift  express  his  soul's  gratitude,  dependence,  and 
faith.  As  he  stood  before  God  with  his  offering,  body  and  soul  were 
in  harmony.  But  in  Cain  this  harmony  is  wholly  wanting.  His 
body  and  soul  were  not  together.  The  bodily  gift,  indeed,  was  offered, 
but  it  spoke  nothing  in  behalf  of  the  soul. 

Every  man  then  wanting  a  religion,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  first 
idea  men  light  upon  is  always  the  same.  The  first  notion  of  re- 
ligion is  that  which  we  find  illustrated  in  Cain  and  Abel ;  they  would 
bring  an  offering,  a  gift  to  propitiate  the  deity  and  secure  His  favour. 
Cain  and  Abel  did  not  merely  bring  their  offerings  as  expressions  of 
their  thankfulness  for  temporal  prosperity ;  the  story  clearly  indicates 
that  they  looked  for  the  Divine  acceptance  of  themselves,  in  some 
sense,  for  the  sake  of  their  gift.  Cain  was  angry  because  he  did  not, 
by  his  offering,  secure  the  Divine  favour.  .  .  .  Abel's  lamb  was,  in 
itself,  no  more  acceptable  than  Cain's  corn  and  fruits.  Abel's 
humble,  earnest,  grateful,  trusting  heart  can  receive  God's  favour ; 
from  Cain's  formalities,  and  unloving,  untrustful  soul,  God's  favour 
must  be  hidden.' 

The  Spirit  of  Man,  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Beast. 

ECCLESIASTES  iii.  21  (Rev.  Ver.)  :  'Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man  whether  it 
goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  the  beast  whether  it  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?' 

Difficulty. — This  expression  appears  to  assume  some  future  state 
for  the  spirit  of  the  beast. 

Explanation. — Our  estimate  of  such  a  sentence  depends  on 
who  uttered  it,  the  mood  of  mind  in  which  the  man  was  when  he 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  MAN,  ETC.  431 

uttered  it,  and  the  purpose  he  had  before  him  in  making  the  utter- 
ance. This  is  the  language  of  a  disappointed,  weary  sensualist,  who 
looked  drearily  at  life,  and  found  nothing  cheerful  or  hopeful  in  it. 
He  had  not  sought  the  chief  end  of  life — to  glorify  God ;  he  had 
striven  but  for  the  low  ends  of  selfish  pleasure  and  material  good. 
So  life  seemed  to  him  a  failure,  and  the  ending  of  it  a  hopeless 
mystery.  We  must  not  confuse  the  wailings  and  groanings  of  such  a 
man  with  the  Divine  inspirations  and  leadings  of  Psalmist  or 
Prophet.  It  really  does  not  matter  in  the  least  what  such  a  miserable 
self-seeker  thought  about  life,  or  about  death,  about  the  spirit  in  man, 
or  the  spirit  of  the  animals.  We  hear  his  despairings  much  as  we 
hear  the  foul  and  foolish  talk  of  the  drunkard  ;  and  only  say,  '  Poor 
man  !  he  evidently  is  not  in  his  right  mind.'  He  can  never  see  life 
aright,  who  sees  it  only  as  a  sphere  in  which  to  serve  self-interests. 

Even  if  we  regard  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  but  as  a  review  of 
the  foolish  and  unworthy  things  the  writer  had  done  and  thought, 
the  same  remarks  will  apply.  We  can  only  pity  the  man  who,  under 
any  circumstances,  could  think  such  strange  things. 

But  the  inquiry  which  the  sentence  starts  is  an  interesting  one. 
There  may  be  no  difficulty  in  regarding  death  as  closing  the  existence 
of  the  wild  creatures,  and  of  the  animals  that  are  used  for  man's  food ; 
but  many  feel  difficulty  respecting  the  possible  future  of  the  domestic 
animals,  in  whom  intelligence  is  cultured  by  constant  association  with 
man.  It  is  not  a  subject  on  which  any  dogmatism  can  be  allowed  ; 
but  it  is  one  in  which  poetry  and  sentiment  may  influence  us  more 
than  we  know. 

What  is  called  the  '  tripartite  division  of  human  nature '  may  help 
us.  It  was  usual  to  speak  of  man  as  made  up  of  body  and  soul. 
Then  it  was  clear  that  the  body  of  the  animal  was  kin  with  the  body 
of  man  ;  and  it  might  easily  be  assumed  that  the  soul  of  the  animal 
was  kin  with  the  soul  of  the  man  ;  and  then  imagination  could 
readily  dream  of  a  future  state  for  beast  as  well  as  for  man.  But  a 
more  scientific  division  of  human  nature  now  prevails.  Man  has 
body  .and  animal  life  in  common  with  the  beasts;  but  man  is  a  soul. 
His  body  will  corrupt  as  do  the  bodies  of  the  beasts.  His  animal 
life  will  go  out  in  death,  as  does  the  life  of  the  beasts.  He  himself 
is  untouched  by  the  corruption  of  his  body,  and  exists  when  the  life 
that  informed  and  inspired  the  body  has  ceased  to  be.  It  is  not 
correct  to  say  that  man  has  immortality ;  the  soul,  which  is  the  man, 
is  immortal ;  and  this  truth,  which  has  always  been  true,  was  'brought 
to  light  by  the  Gospel.'  The  possibilities  of  the  animal  life,  working 
through  the  organism  of  the  beast,  may  produce  surprising  results  of 


432      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

what  we  may  regard  as  intelligence  and  will,  but  the  animal  life  has 
no  law  of  permanence.  It  of  necessity  passes  away,  ends,  in  what  we 
know  as  death.  In  the  line  of  this  suggestion  may  be  found  a  satis- 
factory solution  of  the  difficult  question  of  man's  natural  right  to  im 
mortality.  Understand  that  man  is  a  Soul,  and  has  a  body  and 
animal  life,  to  put  him  for  a  time  into  earthly  relations,  and  it  is 
easy  to  grasp  the  idea  that  he  is  immortal.  We  know  of  nothing  that 
can  stop  the  existence  of  a  soul. 

Considering  the  actual  expression  of  the  text  heading  this  para- 
graph, it  may  first  be  remarked  that  the  translation  of  it  may  be  im- 
proved. Weiss  gives  more  point  to  it — '  The  spirit  of  man  that 
ascends,  it  belongeth  to  on  high ;  but  the  spirit  of  the  beast  that 
descends,  it  belongeth  to  below,  even  to  the  earth.' 

Zockler  says :  'All  these  passages  (such  as  refer  to  "returning  to 
dust ";  e.g.t  Gen.  iii.  19  ;  Ps.  civ.  29  ;  cvii.  4 ;  Sirach  xl.  n  ;  xli.  10), 
like  this  one  (Eccl.  iii.  20)  regard  man  solely  as  a  material  being,  and, 
in  so  far,  assert  a  perfect  likeness  in  his  death  to  that  of  the  beasts. 
The  question  whether  the  spirit  of  man  shares  this  fate  is  yet  un- 
answered.' On  verse  21  Zockler  says  :  'The  construction  is  not  that 
of  an  affirmative  question,  but  rather  that  of  a  doubtful  one,  express- 
ing uncertainty.  The  words  "  who  knoweth  "  point  out  that  the 
matter  is  difficult  of  conception,  not,  at  first  view,  clear  and  apparent, 
but  rather  eluding  the  direct  observation  of  sense.  This  verse  does 
not,  therefore,  assert  an  absolute  ignorance  (as  Knobel  supposes),  but 
rather  some  knowledge  regarding  the  fate  of  the  spirit  in  the  world 
beyond,  though  wanting  certainty  and  external  evidence.  Concerning 
the  return  of  the  spirit  of  man  to  its  Divine  Giver,  it  maintains  that 
no  one,  in  this  world,  has  ever  seen  or  survived  it.  A  denial  of  the 
immortality  of  the  spirit  of  man,  as  an  object  of  inward  certainty  of 
faith,  is  not  to  be  found  in  this  passage.' 

Professor  Tayler  Lewis  thinks  the  writer  is  scoffing  at  the  idea  of 
man's  '  spirit  ascending,'  or  of  the  permanence  and  immortality  for 
man  more  than  for  beast.  '  He  sneers  at  it,  as  something  which 
might  be  vainly  held  by  a  few,  but  was  wholly  contrary  to  sense  and 
experience.  No  one  knows  anything  about  it.  It  would  be  some- 
thing like  the  sneer  that  used  to  be  heard  from  the  coarser  kind  of 
infidels — who  ever  saw  a  soul  ?' 

Bishop  Wordsworth  says  :  '  Solomon  has  been  speaking  before  of 
that  which  is  visible — the  corporeal  element  of  man  ;  and  with  regard 
to  that  he  has  said,  that  it  goes  down  to  the  dust,  like  the  bodies  of 
beasts.  But  man  possesses  something  which  the  beasts  have  not — a 
spirit  that  goeth  upward.'  To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  idea 


THE  'HELL'  FOR   WICKED  NATIONS.          433 

of  man  possessing  a  spirit  is  confusing  :  a  man  is  a  spirit,  and  the  spirit 
possesses  a  body,  for  present  earthly  relations. 

It  may  therefore  be  firmly  asserted  that  continuity  of  existence  is 
the  prerogative  of  no  merely  animal  being.  The  future  state  of  even 
domestic  creatures  is  only  a  poetical  dream,  an  imaginative  sentiment 
Immortality  belongs  to  beings  who  are  not  '  of  the  earth  earthy.' 

The  «  Hell '  for  Wicked  Nations. 

PSALM  ix.  17  :  'The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the  nations  that 
forget  God.' 

Difficulty. — Hell  is  properly  conceived  as  the  place  of  final  punish- 
ment for  individual  sinners,  not  as  the  place  of  judgment  for  nations,  on 
account  of  national  sins. 

Explanation.—'  Hell '  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  '  Hell ' 
which  finds  a  place  in  Christian  doctrine.  '  Sheol,'  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  'Hades,'  in  the  New  Testament,  are  terms  that  mean 
*  the  abode  of  disembodied  spirits.'  No  doubt  there  were  various 
notions  entertained  concerning  the  occupations  and  interests  of  such 
spirits ;  but,  so  far  as  Bible  references  go,  we  can  trace  little  more 
than  the  general  idea  of  continuance  of  existence.  It  may,  perhaps, 
suffice  that  we  see,  in  the  above  passage,  a  vigorous  poetical  figure, 
of  which  the  prosaic  meaning  is,  that  the  wicked  should  be  exposed 
to  sudden  death,  and  the  national  existence  of  those  who  '  forget 
God '  should  come  to  an  end  that  may  be  represented  by  the  death 
of  the  individual.  National  '  death  '  is  the  extinction  of  corporate, 
national  life.  The  Jewish  nation  died,  or,  we  may  say,  was  '  turned 
into  hell,'  when  Jerusalem  was  taken  by  the  Romans,  and  the  national 
organization  finally  broken  up. 

Our  Lord  used  this  figure  in  His  denunciation  of  the  cities  of 
Galilee  that  had  rejected  Him :  {  And  thou,  Capernaum,  which  art 
exalted  into  heaven,  shalt  be  brought  down  to  hell/  This  was  ful- 
filled in  the  destruction  of  the  city  as  a  city.  The  very  site  of  it  is 
now  uncertain,  so  completely  has  it  died. 

Another  rendering  of  Ps.  ix.  1 7  is,  '  The  wicked  must  return  to  the 
Underworld  (Sheol).'  The  *  Prayer-book  Version '  gives  '  people  ' 
instead  of  '  nations.'  Dean  Perowne  renders :  *  The  wicked  must 
return  to  the  unseen  world,  (even)  all  the  nations  that  forget  God.' 
And  his  note  on  the  passage  is  satisfactory.  '  The  Biblical  idea  is  that 
of  returning  to  the  dust,  taken  from  the  original  passage  in  Gen.  iii. 
19.  Compare  Job  xxx.  23,  of  a  return  to  Sheol  (i.e.,  Hades,  the 
unseen  world),  as  here,  and  in  Ps.  xc.  3,  "  Thou  makest  man  return 

28 


434      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

to  destruction,"  expressions  only  to  be  explained  by  the  dimness 
which  then  hung  over  the  grave,  and  the  life  beyond  it.  The  mean- 
ing is,  that  even  now,  before  the  eyes  of  men,  God's  righteousness 
shall  be  seen  in  cutting  off  the  wicked  by  a  sudden  and  premature 
end,  and  helping  and  exalting  the  righteous.'  Comp.  Ps.  Ixxiii. 
17-19. 

Dr.  Alfred  Barry  says  the  expression  means  '  shall  pass  away  in 
death  to  the  unknown  spiritual  world,  just  as  the  body  shall  return  to 
the  dust.  The  idea  is  not  the  punishment  of  evil,  but  of  its  unsub- 
stantiality,  and  transitoriness.' 

The  Christian  idea  of  hell  assumes  that  men  are  no  longer  in 
any  corporate  relations,  but  God  can  deal  with  them  strictly  as 
individuals.  There  are  no  families  in  hell,  no  societies  in  hell,  no  classes 
in  hell,  no  nations  in  hell.  An  old  divine  was  accustomed  to  say : 
'  God  deals  with  nations  only  in  this  life,  but  He  deals  with  individuals 
both  in  this  life  and  the  next.' 

The  Hebrew  notions  respecting  Sheol  were  of  the  most  vague 
description.  Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  they  regarded 
the  grave  as  the  final  end  of  all  sentient  and  intelligent  existence, 
'  the  land  where  all  things  are  forgotten  ' — a  state  of  final  oblivion ; 
and  this,  as  conceived  for  the  wicked,  seems  to  imply  that  the  idea  of 
continuity  of  life  after  death  was  hoped  for,  as  the  reward  of  the 
good. 

Did  God  Command  Sacrifices  ? 

JEREMIAH  vii.  22  :  '  For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in 
the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings 
or  sacrifices.' 

Difficulty. — //  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  this  statement  with  the  com- 
mission of  Moses. 

Explanation.— The  difficulty  is  removed  when  the  precise  point 
of  the  text  is  recognised.  The  word  *  concerning '  should  be  rendered 
'  with  a  view  to  the  matter  of  sacrifices/  That  is,  they  were  not  the 
end  contemplated.  They  were  but  means  for  securing  a  higher  end ; 
and  therefore  those  were  altogether  mistaken  and  wrong  who  limited 
their  view  to  the  formal  sacrifice.  It  is  a  leading  characteristic  of 
prophetic  teaching,  that  the  merely  formal  ritual  is  undervalued,  and 
the  moral  claim  of  God  on  love,  obedience,  and  service  is  vigorously 
insisted  on  ;  as  may  be  illustrated  by  Isaiah  i.,  and  even  by  Psalm  1. 

The  first  promulgation  of  the  law,  the  basis  of  the  covenant  with 
Israel,  contemplated  a  spiritual,  ethical  religion,  of  which  the  basis 
was  found  in  the  ten  great  words,  or  commandments,  of  Exodus  xx. 


DID  GOD  COMMAND  SACRIFICES!  435 

The  ritual  in  connection  with  sacrifice  was  prescribed  partly  as  a 
concession  to  the  feeling  which  showed  itself,  in  its  evil  form,  in  the 
worship  of  the  golden  calf,  partly  as  an  education. 

Lowth  says  :  '  It  is  a  way  of  speaking  usual  in  Scripture,  to  express 
the  preference  that  is  due  to  one  thing  above  another,  in  terms  which 
express  the  rejection  of  that  which  is  less  worthy ;  and  thus  I  con- 
ceive we  are  to  understand  the  text  here,  in  correspondence  with  the 
parallel  place  of  Hosea  (vi.  6),  "  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice." 
The  words  in  both  places  implying  that  God  always  laid  a  greater 
stress  upon  sincere  obedience  than  on  external  observances,  and 
designed  the  latter,  as  so  many  mounds  and  fences,  to  guard  and 
preserve  the  former.  But  several  of  the  fathers  infer  from  this  text 
that  God  never  gave  any  command  to  the  Jews  about  sacrifices,  till 
after  they  had  defiled  themselves  with  idolatry,  by  offering  sacrifices 
to  the  golden  calf.'  (So  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus.) 

The  point  of  the  verse  is  given  in  Henderson's  paraphrase  :  *  Ritual 
observances  were  regarded  by  God  as  matters  of  secondary  import- 
ance, which,  when  substituted  for  the  moral  duties  required  by  the 
law,  and  especially  the  first  and  great  commandment,  supreme  love 
to  Himself  as  the  source  and  pattern  of  all  excellence,  He  could  not 
but  treat  with  merited  reprobation.' 

Henderson  remarks  suggestively,  that  it  is  not  infrequent  in  the 
Scriptures  for  a  thing  to  be  stated  absolutely,  which  is  true  only 
relatively.  Absolutely  God  did  command  sacrifices,  but  not  such  as 
they  offered,  nor  as  of  final  obligation.  The  moral  law  was  promul- 
gated first,  and  is  therefore  of  primary  importance ;  the  ceremonial 
law  was  given  only  afterwards,  as  a  temporary  aid  to  the  keeping  of 
the  primary  law. 

'The  Blood  is  the  Atonement/ 

LEVITICUS  xvii.  n  :  '  For  the  life  of  flesh  is  in  the  blood  :  and  I  have  given  it 
to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls  :  for  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul.' 

Difficulty. — //  does  not  seem  quite  clear  whether  the  '  blood ','  or  the 
1  life  '  which  the  blood  represents^  is  the  true  atonement. 

Explanation. — What  is  clear  is  that  the  '  life '  is  regarded  as  the 
spiritual  reality,  and  the  '  blood '  as  the  earthly  sign  or  expression  of 
it.  If  then  the  atonement  is  conceived  of  only  as  an  outward  and 
material  adjustment  of  broken  earthly  relations,  it  may  well  be  that 
the  'blood'  is  the  'atonement.'  But  if  the  atonement  is  conceived 
of  as  a  spiritual  adjustment  of  broken  spiritual  relations,  then  it  must 

•  28—2 


436     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

be  the  '  life  '  that  is  the  true  atonement.  '  Shedding  of  blood  '  can 
but  be  the  figure.  '  Yielding  the  life '  must  be  the  reality.  Probably 
the  failure  to  recognise  this  distinction  between  the  spiritual  reality 
and  the  earthly  picture  or  figure  of  it,  is  the  chief  cause  of  the  diffi- 
culty felt  in  apprehending  the  nature  of  our  Lord's  atonement.  To 
this  point  attention  may  be  further  directed. 

The  two  facts,  the  blood-shedding  of  Judaism  and  the  blood- 
shedding  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  are  presented  to  us  as  answering  the 
one  to  the  other,  as  do  the  type  and  the  antitype.  Those  Jewish 
sacrifices  were  '  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were 
offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sin.'  '  The  patterns  of  things  in 
the  heavens  (i.e.,  spiritual  things)  were  purified  with  these  (i.e.,  with 
the  blood  of  animals,  of  bulls  and  goats)  ;  but  the  heavenly  things 
themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than  these'  (i.e.,  with  the  'life,'  the 
will,  the  surrender,  the  sacrifice,  of  a  spiritual  being).  The  Scriptures 
very  carefully  teach  us  that  the  reality  could  not  be  found  in  the 
Jewish  sacrifices.  They  were  only  the  picture  of  the  reality.  The 
spiritual  reality  might  indeed,  even  in  those  days,  be  reached  by  the 
faith  of  the  pious  worshipper,  who  could  look  through  his  sacrifice, 
and  believe  that,  in  some  spiritual  mode,  of  which  it  was  the  type, 
God  would  accomplish  human  redemption.  It  was  not  possible  that 
such  sacrifices  could  atone  for  sin.  '  They  could  not  make  him  that 
did  the  service  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience.'  It  is  not 
possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sin. 
The  old  service  was  '  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come.' 

From  the  picture  painted  by  God  for  the  Jews  ;  by  this  shadow, 
flung  on  earth  in  Jewish  days  from  the  coming  spiritual  sacrifice  of 
Christ ;  from  the  atonements  of  the  '  blood,'  we  may  learn  the 
spiritual  mystery  of  the  atonement  of  the  'life.'  Under  the  Old 
Testament  economy,  there  was  a  figure,  and  an  underlying  reality. 
In  the  New  Testament  sacrifice  there  is  a  corresponding  outward 
figure  and  underlying  spiritual  reality.  If  that  sacrifice  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  had  been  only  a  spiritual  sacrifice,  if  it  had  found  no  expression 
in  bodily  sufferings  and  a  violent  death — if  no  blood  had  been  shed 
— we  men,  so  enslaved  by  the  senses,  could  never  have  grasped  it,  or 
apprehended  it.  Christ's  bodily  sufferings  and  blood-shedding  are 
not,  in  themselves,  His  great  sacrifice,  they  are  the  form  it  took  for 
bodily  eyes  to  see ;  the  body  it  wore  for  this  mortal  sphere ;  the 
temple  within  which  the  feal  sacrifice  of  an  obedient  will  was  offered. 
The  'blood 'represented  the  'life.' 


ANGEL-CHARGE.  437 

Angel-Charge. 

PSALM  xci.  1 1  :  '  For  he  shall  give  his  angels  charge  over  thee,  to  keep  thee  in 
all  thy  ways.' 

Question. —  Will  such  a  passage  support  the  generally  received 
notions  concerning  guardian  angels  ? 

Answer. — Poetry  loves  to  personify.  When  the  poet  would  set 
before  us  the  care  of  the  Divine  Providence,  it  takes  form,  for  him, 
as  the  watching  and  tending  of  angelic  beings.  Whatever  other 
reasons  we  may  find  for  believing  in  the  existence  of  ministering 
angels,  such  a  belief  cannot  properly  be  based  on  the  figurative 
expressions  of  a  poet.  The  figure  is  probably  taken  from  the  customs 
of  an  earthly  sovereign,  who  is  not  supposed  to  do  anything  himself, 
anything  directly,  but  everything  through  agents,  the  ministers,  the 
officials,  the  servants  of  his  court.  The  idea  is  transferred  to  God, 
who  is  conceived  as  declaring  His  good  pleasure,  and  trusting  its 
execution  to  the  attendants  on  His  court,  the  angels,  the  ministering 
spirits.  But  such  a  material  conception  of  God's  surroundings  and 
relations,  however  helpful  to  us,  must  be  regarded  as  accommodation 
to  our  capacity,  and  not  as  literal  statement  of  fact.  The  abstract- 
minded  man  can  grasp  the  idea  of  providential  care ;  the  concrete- 
minded  man  needs  the  help  of  poetical  representations  of  angel- 
guards. 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  thinks  that  the  words  neither  assert  nor 
deny  the  appointment  of  specific  guardian  angels  to  individuals. 

Ellicotfs  Commentary  says  :  '  The  idea  of  a  special  guardian  angel 
for  each  individual  has  possibly  been  favoured  by  this  verse,  though 
it  had  its  origin  in  heathen  belief.'  Menander  has  the  following 

verse : 

'  By  every  man,  as  he  is  born,  there  stands 
A  spirit  good,  a  holy  guide  of  life.' 

*  Here,  however,  it  is  not  one  particular  individual,  but  all  who  have 
fulfilled  the  conditions  of  verses  9  and  10,  who  are  the  objects  of 
angelic  charge.' 

Perowne  thinks  the  '  angels '  here  are  not  '  guardian  angels,  but 
God's  ministers  in  the  government  of  the  world.' 

Ayre  says  :  '  Some  have  chosen  to  doubt  whether  there  be  indeed 
such  an  order  of  intelligences  (as  angels),  and  whether  the  passages 
of  Scripture  which  seem  to  describe  them  are  not  examples  of  Jewish 
figurative  speech ;  just  as  the  fancy  of  heathen  nations  personified 
powers  and  qualities,  even  dedicating  temples  to  imaginary  beings,  as 
Fortune,  etc.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that,  as  the  Deity  has  not 


438      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

peopled  our  world  with  one  class  of  creatures  only,  so  it  is  not  un- 
reasonable to  believe  that  in  His  vast  dominions  there  are  other 
orders,  of  a  nature  different  from  ours,  but  intelligent,  and  capable  of 
doing  Him,  their  Creator,  active  service.  And  there  is  proof  positive 
of  this  in  Scripture.' 

Rev.  John  Farrar,  in  his  '  Biblical  and  Theological  Dictionary,' 
^ays :  c  As  to  each  individual  being  under  the  care  of  a  guardian 
.angel,  the  Scriptures  do  not  support  the  notion.  Ps.  xxxiv.  7  ; 
Matt,  xviii.  10,  are  generally  referred  to  as  proof  of  this  opinion  ; 
but  they  have  certainly  no  such  meaning.  Many  of  the  Christian 
fathers  held  that  there  are  two  angels,  one  good  and  the  other  bad, 
attendant  on  each  individual.  The  heathens  held  it  in  a  modified 
form ;  the  Greeks  had  their  tutelary  demon,  and  the  Latins  their 
genius? 

The  Institution  of  the  Seventh  Day  Rest. 

GENESIS  ii.  2,  3  :  '  And  on  the  seventh  day  God  finished  his  work  which  he  had 
made  :  and  he  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made. 
And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  hallowed  it :  because  that  in  it  he  rested 
from  all  his  work  which  God  had  created  and  made.5 

Question. — How  may  the  idea  of  '  resting*  be  applied  to  God? 
And  how  can  God's  resting  be  a  type,  or  model,  of  our  mode  of  keeping 
the  Sabbath  ? 

Answer.  —  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Moses  presents 
this  record  as  a  basis  on  which  to  demand  a  seventh  day  resting 
from  the  ordinary  labour  of  life.  We  may  therefore  see  that  mans 
resting  is  taken  and  applied  to  God,  rather  than  that  the  incon- 
ceivable thing,  God's  resting,  is  taken  and  applied  to  man.  Resting 
can  only  be  applied  to  God  in  a  figurative  sense.  He  is  the  eternally 
active  One  ;  but  He  may  be  thought  of  as  completing  one  portion  of 
His  work,  finishing  the  fitting  up  of  earth  for  the  abode  of  man,  and 
setting  man  upon  it,  and  then  '  ceasing  from '  His  labours. 

Lange  remarks :  '  It  seems  to  us  that  the  rest  of  God  does  not 
denote  a  remaining  inactive  merely,  or  a  doing  nothing.  The  per- 
fecting of  the  work  on  the  seventh  is  likewise  something  positive, 
namely,  that  God  celebrated  His  work  (kept  a  holy  day  of  solemn 
triumph  over  it),  and  blessed  the  Sabbath.  To  celebrate,  to  bless,  to 
consecrate,  is  the  finishing  Sabbath-work — a  living,  active,  priestly 
doing,  and  not  merely  a  laying  aside  of  action.  The  doing  of  God 
in  respect  to  the  completed  creation  is  of  a  festive  kind  (solemn, 
stately,  holy),  a  directing  of  motion,  and  of  an  unfolding  of  things  now 
governed  by  law,  in  contrast  with  that  work  of  God  which  was 


INSTITUTION  OF  THE  SEVENTH  DAY  REST.  439 

reflected  in  the  pressure  of  a  stormy  development,  and  in  the  great 
revolutions  and  epochs  of  the  earth's  formation.' 

St.  Augustine  says  :  '  God  rested — not  as  if  He  were  wearied.  No, 
the  "  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth  fainteth  not,  neither  is  weary," 
but  He  saw  what  He  had  made  was  good,  and  contemplated  His 
own  works,  and  rejoiced  in  them ;  and  thus  commended  to  us  the 
state  of  contemplation  as  higher  than  that  of  labour,  and  as  a  state 
to  be  attained  by  labour.' 

God  put  aside  His  relation  to  material  things  as  their  Creator,  and 
occupied  Himself  in  the  world  of  spirit ;  and  that  was  His  resting. 
Our  putting  aside  our  relation  to  common  life-work,  and  occupation 
of  thought  and  heart  with  spirit-things,  unseen  and  eternal  things, 
would  be  our  imitation  of  the  Divine  example. 

Bishop  Harold  Browne  says  :  '  The  simple  meaning  of  the  text  is 
therefore  by  far  the  most  probable,  viz.,  that  God,  having  divided 
His  own  great  work  into  six  portions,  assigned  a  special  sacredness 
to  the  seventh,  on  which  that  work  became  complete,  and  that, 
having  called  man  into  being,  He  ordained  him  for  labour,  but  yet 
in  love  and  mercy  appointed  that  one-seventh  of  his  time  should  be 
given  to  rest,  and  to  the  religious  service  of  his  Maker.' 

It  should  be  observed  that  man's  nightly  rest,  and  his  Sabbath 
rest,  materially  differ.  The  nightly  rest  is  compulsory,  and  belongs 
to  man  as  one  of  the  animals.  The  Sabbath  rest  is  voluntary ;  it 
belongs  to  man  as  a  moral  being ;  and  becomes  an  agency  for  the 
expression  and  the  culture  of  his  moral  nature.  The  morally  educa- 
tional purpose  of  the  Sabbath  does  not  appear  to  have  been  sufficiently 
considered. 


The  Holy  Spirit  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments. 

PSALM  li.  u,  12  :  'Take  not  thy  holy  spirit  from  me.'  c  Uphold  me  with  thy 
free  spirit.' 

Question. —  What  is  the  essential  oneness,  and  the  apparent 
diversity,  of  the  representations  made  in  the  two  Testaments  concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

Answer. — It  is  quite  certain  that  a  worthy  reception  of  God 
must  include  the  idea  that  He  always  has  been  able  to,  and  that  He 
always  has,  wrought  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  His  creatures,  His 
Spirit  witnessing  with  their  spirit.  We  gain  some  light  on  an 
.abstruse  subject  if  we  give  up  attempting  to  understand  the  absolute 
Being  of  God,  and  fix  our  attention  on  the  revelations  which  He  has 
been  pleased  to  make  of  Himself  to  us.  Then  we  may  gain  a  view 


440     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

of  the  Divine  Trinity,  which,  if  it  is  not  doctrinally  sufficient,  is 
certainly  practically  helpful.  The  question  we  should  ask  is  not 
What  is  God  ?  but  How  is  God  related  to  me  ?  And  what  appre- 
hensions of  His  relations  can  I  gain  ?  Answering  these  questions  is 
within  the  range  of  possibility.  We  find  that  we  are  able  to  think  of 
God  as  distinct  from  all  His  works.  We  find  that  we  can  see  God, 
or  apprehend  Him  with  our  senses,  if  He  is  pleased  to  show  Himself 
in  the  sense-sphere.  And  we  find  that  we  can  recognise  His  working 
in  the  inner,  unseen  realms  of  our  thought  and  of  our  feeling. 

Then  whenever  we  think  God,  as  distinct  from  His  creation,  we 
are  realizing  the  first  person  of  the  Sacred  Trinity.  Whenever  we 
apprehend  God  by  our  senses,  we  realize  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity.  And  whenever  we  apprehend  God  in  our  feeling,  we  realize 
the  third  person  of  the  Trinity. 

God  in  our  thought  and  feeling  is  God  the  Spirit,  or  God  realized 
by  us  in  His  spiritual  operations.  And  He  must  have  been  known 
through  this  relation  from  the  earliest  ages,  for  in  connection  with  the 
sinners  before  the  Flood,  He  is  represented  as  saying,  '  My  Spirit 
shall  not  always  strive  with  men.' 

The  Holy  Ghost  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  same  Divine 
presence  realized  in  a  spiritual  manner,  which  is  common  to  all  ages. 
The  difference  is  simply  made  by  the  agency  used  in  the  Divine 
operations.  In  Old  Testament  times  God  wrought  in  men's  hearts. 
by  a  variety  of  agencies ;  anything  and  everything  man  thought 
about,  or  man  felt,  could  be,  and  was,  used  by  God  the  Spirit  to 
work  out  His  ends  of  grace.  In  the  New  Testament,  God  the  Spirit 
uses  as  His  special  agency,  the  life,  and  words,  and  works  of  Jesus 
Christ.  He  '  taker,  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and  reveals  them  unto 
us.'  The  Holy  Ghost — if  we  keep  that  term  as  distinctive — is  God, 
working  in  the  souls  of  men,  and  using,  as  His  special  and  peculiar 
agency,  His  manifestation  of  Himself  to  the  senses  of  men,  as  the 
£011*  whom  they  could  see,  and  hcav,  and  touch. 

It  will,  however,  be  recognised  by  careful  students  that  the  terms 
Holy  Spirit,  Holy  Ghost,  are  used  interchangeably  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  term  Holy  Ghost  being  found  before  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  which  is  regarded  as  His  formal  coming.  There  is  no 
essential  difference  between  the  Divine  relation  to  men  before  and 
after  the  coming  of  Christ  into  the  world.  The  difference  lies  in  the 
addition  of  a  new  agency  which  God  the  SpL  '.  may  use.  The  Spirit 
vorks  now  as  He  has  always  worked,  but  He  h:  s  new  motive  powers, 
new  considerations,  a  new  agency,  in  having  the  earthly  manifestation 
of  Christ. 


HOL  Y  SPIRIT  OF  OLD  AND  ME  W  TESTAMENTS.  441 

But  the  passages  placed  at  the  head  of  this  paragraph  remind  us- 
lat  the  references  made  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  '  Spirit '  need 
)  be  treated  with  care,  and  with  an  open  mind.  The  writer  of  this- 
'salm — and  we  may  safely  take  it  to  have  been  David — had  no 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  no  idea  of  those  distinctions  in  the 
Hvine  Being  which  are  so  familiar  to  us.'  We  require  to  be  very 
areful,  therefore,  in  putting  our  ideas  into  his  mind,  and  reading  our 
octrinal  ideas  into  his"  writings. 

The  'Holy  Spirit'  of  verse  u,  and  the  'free  spirit'  of  verse  12, 
re  not  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity,  but  the  spirit  of  purity,  as 
ontrasted  with  the  spirit  of  sensuality ;  and  the  spirit  of  liberty,  as 
ontrasted  with  the  bondage  to  evil  which  had  enslaved  and  de- 
raded  the  Psalmist. 

Dean  Perowne  says  :  '  We  need  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  such  a 
'rayer  in  the  lips  of  David  could  not  mean  all  that  it  means  now  to 
Christian.  David  could  hardly  have  understood  by  the  Holy 
•pint  a  Divine  Person,  nor  could  he  have  been  made  partaker  of  the 
>pirit  in  the  same  sense  that  Christians  are ;  for  not  until  Jesus  was 
.lorified  was  the  Spirit  given  in  all  His  light  and  power,  in  all  His 
[uickening  and  sanctifying  grace.'  'The  expression  "free  spirit,"  or 
;  willing  spirit,"  like  the  "steadfast  spirit"  of  verse  10,  refers  im~ 
nediately  to  the  spirit  of  man,  but  to  that  spirit  as  influenced  and 
;uided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  suggests  that  by  the  '  Holy  Spirit '  is 
neant  '  the  spirit  whereby  David  was  consecrated  to  his  kingly 
>ffice,  and  endued  with  the  gifts  and  graces  requisite  for  discharging 
ts  duties.  See  i  Sam.  xvi.  13,  where  it  is  said  that  after  he  was 
Anointed  by  Samuel,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  David  from 
hat  day  forward."  The  Psalmist  must  also  have  remembered  that 
.t  the  same  time  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed  from  Saul,  and  have 
sit  that  he  had  incurred  the  most  imminent  danger  of  a  similar 
.bandonment.' 

A.  S.  Aglen  says :  '  Plainly,  as  the  parallelism  shows,  the  petition 
s  equivalent  to  a  prayer  against  rejection  from  the  Divine  favour, 
ind  is  not  to  be  pressed  into  any  doctrinal  discussion.' 

Jennings  and  Lowe  say :  '  If  the  Psalm  be  interpreted  as  written  in 
he  name  of  David,  this  term  may  mean  merely  that  spirit  of  office 
vhich  came  upon  David  after  he  was  anointed  king.  But  it  is 
equally  admissible  to  take  "  Holy  Spirit "  to  mean  (as  in  Isai. 
xiii.  1 6)  the  Spirit  of  grace,  i.e.,  the  Divine  Nature  as  manifesting 
tself  in  influencing  the  moral  nature  of  man.' 
Dr.  A.  Barry  writes  in  his  '  Notes  to  the  Prayer-book  Version  ' : 


442      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

'Verses  9-12  describe  the  renewal,  there  hopefully  prayed  for,  witf 
singular  vividness,  in  phrases  rising  to  a  glorious  climax — frorr 
11  cleanness  of  heart  "  to  Brightness  "  (properly  "  constancy")  of  the 
renewed  soul ;  then  to  consciousness  of  a  Divine  "  spirit  of  holiness ' 
still  within  us,  and  through  it  a  royal  "freedom  of  spirit"  (the 
"princely  heart  of  innocen.ce"),  defying  the  bondage  both  of  sir 
and  of  fear.' 

An  Egyptian  Appeal  to   God. 

2  CHRONICLES  xxxv.  21  :'  But  he  sent  ambassadors  to  him,  saying,  What  hav< 
I  to  do  with  thee,  thou  king  of  Judah  ?  I  came  not  against  thee  this  day,  but 
against  the  house  wherewith  I  have  war :  for  God  commanded  me  to  make  haste 
forbear  thee  from  meddling  with  God,  who  is  with  me,  that  he  destroy  thee  not.' 

Question. — Could  the  Egyptian  King  have  been  sincere  in  thL 
reference  to  God ;  or  must  we  only  think  that  he  used  a  persuasiot 
which  would  be  effective  withjosiah  ? 

Answer. — There  is  no  necessity  for  our  assuming  that  Pharaol: 
spoke  of  Josiah's  God,  of  Jehovah,  the  national  God  of  Israel.  The 
term  God  is  one  which  any  heathen  might  use  of  the  deity  he  wor 
shipped.  Pharaoh  was  doubtless  referring  to  his  own  God,  tru 
Egyptian  God;  and  by  his  strong  expression  meant  to  convince 
Josiah  that  he  was  acting  under  special  Divine  direction.  Thi.< 
would,  however,  be  no  effective  persuasion  to  Josiah,  who  could  no 
recognise  the  God  of  Pharaoh,  and  had  persuaded  himself  tha 
Jehovah,  the  only  true  God,  willed  the  expedition  which  Pharaol: 
deprecated.  Each  man  was  true  to  his  own  deity,  and  Pharaoh  hac 
no  intention  of  acknowledging  the  superiority  of  the  Jehovah  o 
Josiah.  Confusion  arises  from  our  associating  the  term  God- 
especially  as  printed  with  a  capital  G — with  Jehovah  only. 

Careful  commentators  do,  however,  take  the  view  that  Pharaol: 
spoke  from  Josiah's  standpoint,  and  claims  the  special  direction  o 
Josiah's  God ;  and  certainly,  if  this  view  can  be  maintained,  it  bring.' 
out  more  forcibly  the  self-willedness  of  Josiah.  Thus  Bishop  Words 
worth  says:  'The  sacred  writer  does  not  hesitate  to  describe  the 
words  of  Pharaoh-Necho  as  from  the  mouth  of  God.'  Jamieson  says 
•*  Commentators  are  not  agreed  whether  it  was  really  a  Divine  com 
mission  given  him  through  Jeremiah,  or  whether  he  merely  used  the 
name  of  God  as  an  authority  that  Josiah  would  not  refuse  to  obey.' 

Dr.  Geikie  thinks  that  Pharaoh  uses  the  general  name  for  God 
without  the  article  to  refer  it  to  the  God  of  Judah,  and  expresses  onlj 
his  conviction  that  his  enterprise  is  favoured  by  heaven,  which  is  or 
.his  side — a  belief  any  heathen  might  entertain. 

Canon  Rawlinson  writes :    '  These  are  remarkable  words  in   the 


GOD  CREATING  EVIL.  443 

outh  of  a  heathen  ;  but  they  are  not  without  parallel  in  the  remains 
ancient  Egypt  that  have  come  down  to  us.  Piankhi,  for  instance, 
ing  of  Egypt  about  B.C.  750,  says  in  an  inscription  which  has  been 
inslated  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Cook :  "  Didst  thou  not  know  that  the 
ivine  shade  was  over  me  ?  I  have  not  acted  without  His  know- 
Ige  ;  He  commanded  my  acts."  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the 
gyptian  kings,  in  a  certain  sense,  acknowledged  a  single  supreme 
od,  and  considered  their  actions  to  be  inspired  by  Him.  Thus  the 
planations  that  Necho  referred  to  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  which 
;  had  heard,  and  used  the  word  "  Elohim  "  as  the  proper  word  for 
e  God  of  the  Jews ,  or  that  he  alluded  to  some  oracle  which  he 
id  received — perhaps  one  from  Branchidae (see  "Herod.,"  ii.  158)— 
e  unnecessary.  He  merely  expressed  himself  as  Egyptian  kings 
*re  in  the  habit  of  doing.' 

God  Creating  Evil. 

ISAIAH  xlv.  7  :  '  I  form  the  light,  and  create  darkness ;  I  make  peace,  and 
eate  evil ;  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things.' 

Difficulty. — Some  special  meaning  must  attach  to  the  word  '  evil ' 

God  can  be  said  to  '  create '  it. 

Explanation.— It  should  be  noticed  that  the  term  ' evil '  here  is 
mtrasted  with  'peace,'  not  with  'good';  and  that  the  other  con- 
ast  put  with  it  is  between  'light '  and  'darkness.'  It  appears,  there- 
re,  that  distressing  circumstances,  rather  than  moral  evil,  are  referred 
'.  And  if  that  view  may  be  taken  the  passage  is  relieved  of  its 
lief  difficulty ;  for  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  God  may  use,  as 
jencies  for  effecting  His  moral  purposes,  things  which  man  may  call 
damitous  and  distressing.  It  is  a  common-place  of  Christian  senti- 
ent that  our  afflictions  and  chastisements — the  dark  side  as  well  as 
rht  side  of  life — are  from  the  Lord. 

Hewlett  says  :  '  Among  the  pernicious  doctrines  which  the  advocates 
"  idolatry  taught,  and  which  greatly  prevailed  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  was 
ie  doctrine  "  that  light  and  darkness  were  the  palpable  forms  of  moral 
)od  and  evil ;  that  these  were  now  in  a  state  of  perpetual  antagonism ; 
id  that  these  were  the  causes  of  all  human  enjoyments  and  human 
oes."  To  show  the  absurdity  of  this  doctrine,  Jehovah  exerts  his 
•eative  and  controlling  power  over  the  elements  of  light  and  dark- 
2ss,  and  over  all  the  joyous  and  all  the  woeful  events  that  happen  to 
en.  The  words  "peace"  and  "evil"  are  to  be  understood  as 
nonyms  for  "  prosperity  "  and  "  calamity."  But  as  the  difficulty  or 
>parent  contradiction  arises  from  the  latter  phrase,  "  I  create  evil,' 


444      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

it  is  explained  by  its  use  in  other  portions  of  God's  word,  where  hi 
control  of  #// events  is  asserted ;  and  the  word  here  translated  "  evil 
is  evidently  used  to  express  calamity^  and  not  moral  evil.' 

Moral  evil  is  not,  in  a  philosophical  sense,  a  positive  thing,  and  s 
not  a  thing  that  can  be  said  to  be  'created.'  Evil  is  failure  froi 
duty,  or  disobedience  to  command.  It  is  a  state  of  mind  an 
feeling,  a  condition  of  the  will,  and  so  not  at  all  the  subject  ( 
creative  power.  It  might  be  said  that  God  created  beings  with  th 
possibility  of  doing  good  or  evil.  But  there  seems  little  sense  i 
saying  that  God  creates  either  good  or  evil,  which  are  states  of  min 
and  will,  and  not  tangible  and  visible  things  belonging  to  the  sphei 
of  material  creation. 

'Saadias,  followed  by  Vitringa,  Lowth,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hendersoi 
and  Umbreit,  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  dualism  or  doctrine  of  tw 
co-eternal  principles  as  held  by  the  ancient  Persians.  Gesenii 
objects  that  the  terms  are  too  indefinite,  and  their  general  sense  tc 
obvious,  to  admit  of  this  specific  application. 

Cheyne  paraphrases  the  passage  thus  :  '  The  alternation  of  day  an 
night  is  Jehovah's  ordinance ;  so  also  is  the  alternation  of  light  an 
darkness  in  providence,  of  peace  and  war,  of  success  and  misfortun> 
of  good  and  evil.'  Referring  to  the  idea  of  Saadias  given  above,  b 
adds  :  '  If,  however,  dualism  is  referred  to  at  all  (which  I  doubt,  tb 
language  of  the  prophet  being  so  general),  it  is  rather  the  primitn 
dualism  of  the  Babylonian  religion.  As  for  the  Persian  religion,  tb 
inscriptions  of  the  Achaemenidae  (e.g.,  that  of  Darius  at  Naksl 
Rustam)  are  as  guiltless  of  dualism  as  the  prophet  himself.  But  tb 
form  of  the  prophecy  is  rather  chosen  with  regard  to  its  applicatic 
to  Israel.  The  "  light "  and  the  "  welfare  "  are  that  happy  state  t 
which  Israel  was  to  be  restored  through  (but  not  by)  Cyrus;  tb 
"darkness"  and  the  "calamity"  were  the  misery  and  woe  of  tb 
exile.'  Cheyne  translates  the  sentence,  'that  form  light  and  creai 
darkness,  that  make  welfare  and  create  calamity/ 

Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  '  Moral  evil  is  certainly  not  "  created  "  b 
God  in  the  same  direct  way  as  physical  evil.  He  has  not  necess 
tated  it  by  the  arrangements  of  His  universe.  He  has  but  allow  t 
it  to  come  into  existence.  And  this  He  seems  to  have  done  in  coi 
sequence  of  a  necessity  in  the  nature  of  things.  Either  He  mu 
have  limited  His  creation  to  objects  that  moved  mechanically  an 
were  incapable  of  moral  action,  or,  by  creating  moral  agents,  ha^ 
allowed  the  possibility  of  moral  evil  coming  into  being.  A  free  agei 
must  be  free  to  do  right  or  to  do  wrong;  if  he  is  not  free  to  d 
wrong,  he  is  really  not  free  when  he  does  right.  And  when  millior 


GOD  CREATING  EVIL.  445 

free  agents  were  created,  each  with  a  power  of  doing  wrong,  that 
me  of  them  would  choose  to  do  wrong  was  to  be  expected,  and 
.s  of  course  foreseen  by  the  Creator.  From  the  fact  that,  though 
js  foreseeing  the  introduction  of  sin  into  His  universe,  God  never- 
iless  determined  to  create  moral  beings,  we  may  gather  that  it  is 
tter  in  God's  sight,  and  therefore  better  absolutely,  that  the  two 
isses  of  good  and  bad  moral  beings  should  co-exist,  than  that  there 
ould  be  no  moral  beings  at  all.  Further,  moral  evil  is  certainly, 
e  physical  evil,  a  great  means  of  developing  higher  forms  of  moral 
odness.  The  virtue  that  resists  contact  with  vice,  the  influence  of 
d  example,  the  seductions  of  those  who  make  all  possible  efforts  to 
rrupt,  is  of  a  higher  form  than  that  untried  virtue  which  has  passed 
rough  no  such  ordeal.' 

The  writer  of  a  homily  in  the  '  Pulpit  Commentary '  has  the  following 
.ssage :  *  It  is  an  unworthy  forcing  of  Scripture  to  set  this  passage 
relation  to  the  insoluble  difficulty  of  the  origin  of  moral  evil.  Two 
ings  are  often  confounded — evil  as  an  unpleasant  state  of  our 
rcumstances,  and  evil  as  a  wrong  condition  of  our  will.  The  latter 
referable  to  God  only  in  the  sense  that  He  gave  to  man  a  moral 
iture,  and  a  capacity  of  choice.  The  former  view  of  evil  is  that 
luded  to  in  the  passage  now  before  us.  Perhaps  Isaiah  deals  here 
ih  evil  and  good  as  they  are  regarded  by  man,  not  as  they  are 
timated  by  God.  The  "  good  "  here  is  that  which  is  pleasant ;  the 
evil "  is  that  which  is  painful ;  and  the  assertion  is,  that  both  the 
easant  and  the  painful  are  within  the  Divine  controlling,  and  are 
rces  used  by  God  to  secure  certain  high  moral  ends.' 
Dean  Plumptre  says  :  *  The  words  have  no  bearing  on  the  insoluble 
•oblem  of  what  we  call  the  origin  of  evil.  "  Evil,"  as  opposed  to 
peace"  or  prosperity,  is  suffering,  but  not  sin,  normally,  in  the 
'ivine  counsels,  at  once  the  consequence  and  corrective  of  moral 
/il.'  (Compare  chap,  xlvii.  n  ;  Ivii.  i.) 

The  Angels  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

DANIEL  ix.  21  :  'Yea,  whiles  I  was  speaking  in  prayer,  even  the  man  Gabriel, 
horn  I  had  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning,  being  caused  to  fly  swiftly,  touched 
e  about  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation.' 

Difficulty. — In  a  book  of  this  character  we  can  hardly  tell  what  is 
>  be  taken  as  vision  and  what  as  fact. 

Explanation. — It  is  safer  to  regard  the  prophecies  as  wholly 
elonging  to  the  sphere  of  mental  visions.  No  argument  can 
isely  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  persons  in  inspired  and  ecstatic 
loods  saw  things,  to  prove  that  the  things  actually  existed  which 


446      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

they  saw.  The  vision  may  have  been  but  a  material  setting,  a  pic 
torial  personifying  of  moral  truth  which  could  best  be  apprehende* 
by  the  help  of  such  forms.  That  a  prophet  saw  angel-forms  mm 
not  be  forced  to  prove  that  therefore  there  are  angel-forms.  It  shoul 
also  be  observed  that  the  machinery  of  a  prophetic  vision  must  alway 
be  relative  to  the  knowledge  and  sentiment  of  the  age  in  which  it  i 
given,  and  consequently  much  importance  attaches  to  the  dat 
assigned  to  this  Book  of  Daniel.  It  may  belong  to  a  time  when  th 
notion  of  angel-aid  was  a  common  sentiment,  amounting  almost  to 
prevailing  superstition,  and  then  we  can  account  for  the  angel-form 
that  appear  in  the  book. 

In  this  paragraph  no  attempt  is  made  to  discuss  the  general  Serif 
ture  teaching  concerning  angels ;  the  sphere  of  interest  is  strictl 
limited  to  the  angel  manifestations  of  this  particular  book. 

From  a  very  full  'excursus'  on  the  'angelology'  of  this  boo! 
given  in  the  Speakers  Commentary,  vol.  vi.,  p.  348,  some  extract 
may  be  given :  '  The  angelology,  it  is  said,  points  to  a  time  whe 
Judaism  had  replaced  Hebraism,  and  to  sources  decidedly  Persiar 
Peculiar  names  are  given  to  the  angels,  separate  countries  are  pu 
under  their  protection,  and  these  "definite  distinctions  did  nc 
appear  among  the  Israelites  before  the  Persian  period,  when  the 
came  in  contact  with  the  adherents  of  Magianism." 

'  The  antiquity  of  the  belief  in  angels  is  not  now  disputed.  Th 
foundation  of  the  doctrine  is  recognised  as  laid  in  times  far  anteric 
to  the  captivity  of  Babylon.  The  Hebrews  had,  from  the  earlier 
ages,  been  taught,  and  accustomed  themselves  to  believe,  in  beings  c 
a  nature  superior  to  man,  messengers  of  the  Most  High,  executors  c 
His  orders.  Moses,  it  is  true,  gave  no  precise  idea  of  their  natun 
nor  of  the  rank  they  occupied  in  creation.  It  is  not  till  later  that 
definiteness  and  precision  are  attained,  unrecorded — though  nc 
perhaps  unrecognised — by  the  legislator  of  Israel.  In  this  develoj 
ment  the  Prophet  Daniel  stands  conspicuous.  In  his  pages  may  t 
discerned  the  rudiments  of  the  angelological  conceptions  so  extei 
sively  permeating  the  writings  of  later  Judaism.  To  him  may  h 
traced  a  more  distinct  expression  of  the  attributes  of  the  heaven] 
messengers.  They  are  no  longer  agents  of  the  Deity  generally,  bi 
are  classed  categorically.  Each  has  his  special  department,  each  h 
special  functions.  The  chiefs— those  whose  part  is  the  most  activ 
—are  designated  by  names.  The  Books  of  Tobit  and  the  Fourt 
of  Esdras  carried  these  conceptions  further.  They  developed  angel< 
logy  into  a  system,  and  the  heavenly  host  became  in  their  hands  a 
organized  militia.  .  .  . 


THE  ANGELS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL.      447 

'  A  few  words  will  sum  up  the  angelological  teaching  of  the  Book 
f  Daniel.  Personal  appellations  are  there  first  assigned  to  the 
ministering  spirits  "  of  the  Hebrew  Church.  Two,  named  by  him 
abriel  and  Michael,  are  represented  as  among  the  chiefs  of  the 
bestial  hierarchy  and  agents  of  God  on  behalf  of  man.  They 
ipear  as  guardians  of  nations.  They  espouse  the  cause  of  the 
sople  entrusted  to  them,  and  fight  their  battles.  Daniel  sees  also- 
i  his  vision  "the  watchers  and  holy  ones  come  down  from  heaven  " ; 
ie  judgment  passed  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  is  a  "matter  by  the 
ecree  of  the  watchers,  and  the  demand  by  the  word  of  the  holy 
nes"  (iv.  13,  17,  23).  In  this  can  Daniel  be,  as  regards  the 
octrine  of  the  "  watchers,"  a  mere  borrower  from  the  Amshashpands 
f  the  "Zend-Avesta,"  and,  as  regards  the  doctrine  of  guardian 
ngels,  only  the  echo  of  a  popular  opinion?  It  is  stipulated  by 
riticism  that  the  external  features  of  Daniel's  angelology  must  have 
een  due  to  the  times  and  scenes  in  which  the  writer  actually  lived, 
r  pretended  to  have  lived.  There  is  ample  proof  that  the  Chaldaean 
lythology,  and  the  Mazdeism  of  the  age  of  the  Captivity,  could  have 
applied  every  distinctive  feature  of  Daniel's  framework.  .  .  .  But  there 
re  indications  throughout  Daniel's  work  of  independence  of  origin  and 
•eatment,  proving,  when  regarded  collectively,  the  marked  distinc- 
on  recognised  by  the  writer  himself  between  the  creed  of  the 
lebrew  and  the  Persian.' 

It  is  singular  that  there  should  be  such  marked  difference  in  the 
arly  Bible  representations  of  angels  and  their  missions.  In  Genesis 
-e  find  angels  interested  in  the  family  life  and  movements  of  the 
atriarchs.  Later  on,  they  are  chiefly  associated  with  the  period  of 
ie  Judges,  when  special  Divine  interventions  were  needed.  When 
tie  prophetic  office  was  established,  angel  help  ceased,  save  so  far  as 
:  was  needed  by  the  prophets  themselves.  '  During  the  prophetic 
nd  kingly  period,  angels  are  spoken  of  only  as  ministers  of  God  in 
he  operations  of  Nature.  But  in  the  Captivity,  when  the  Jews  were 
a  the  presence  of  foreign  nations,  each  claiming  its  tutelary  deity, 
hen  to  the  prophets  Daniel  and  Zechariah  angels  are  revealed  in 
,  fresh  light  as  watching,  not  over  Jerusalem  only,  but  also  over 
leathen  kingdoms,  under  the  Providence,  and  to  work  out  the 
lesigns  of,  the  Lord.' 


448      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


God's  Mercy  is  His  Just  Dealing. 

PSALM  Ixii.  12  :  '  Also  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  mercy:  for  thou  renderest  t< 
•every  man  according  to  his  work.' 

Difficulty. — This  is  not  the  usually  accepted  idea  of"  mercy]  whic). 
is  rather  conceived  as  a  dealing  ivith  men  in  ways  that  are  not  strictly 
right. 

Explanation. — The  '  Prayer-book  Version '  is  as  follows  :  *  Goc 
spake  once,  and  twice  I  have  also  heard  the  same :  that  powei 
belongeth  unto  God ;  and  that  Thou,  Lord,  art  merciful :  for  Thou 
rewardest  every  man  according  to  his  work.' 

It  is  easily  seen  that  to  deal  with  a  man  unjustly  is  not  to  deal  witr 
him  mercifully.  But  it  is  not  so  readily  apprehended  that  to  dea' 
with  a  man  justly  is  really  to  deal  with  him  mercifully.  But  wher 
the  union  of  justice  and  mercy  are  spoken  of  in  relation  to  God,  ; 
special  idea  is  brought  in.  God  has  personal  interest  in  each  one  o 
us ;  He  is  concerned  to  secure  our  highest,  our  spiritual,  interests 
and  so  there  is  a  tone  on  all  the  displays  of  His  power  in  relation  tc 
us,  a  graciousness  in  all  His  just  and  right  dealings  with  us.  It  i; 
the  apprehension  of  that  tone  which  enables  the  good  man  to  se( 
God's  '  doing  right  by  him '  as  the  truest  '  mercy '  towards  him. 

Mercy  as  a  merely  weak  yielding  to  present  pleasure ;  mercy  tha 
has  in  it  no  righteousness,  no  steadfastness  to  that  which  is  just,  i; 
but  a  caricature  of  mercy.  It  may  be  favouritism,  it  may  be  mora 
weakness,  it  cannot  be  associated  with  God. 

Delitzsch  has  a  good  note  :  *  Two  great  truths  are  divinely  attestec 
to  the  poet,  (i)  That  God  has  the  power  over  everything  earthly 
that  consequently  nothing  takes  place  without  Him,  and  that  what 
ever  is  opposed  to  Him  must  sooner  or  latter  succumb.  (2)  That  o 
this  very  God,  the  Sovereign  Lord,  is  mercy  also,  the  energy  of  which 
is  measured  by  His  omnipotence,  and  which  does  not  suffer  him  tc 
succumb  upon  whom  it  is  bestowed.  ...  It  shall  be  recompensed 
unto  every  man  according  to  his  conduct,  which  is  the  issue  of  hi< 
relationship  to  God.  He  who  rises  in  opposition  to  the  will  anc 
order  of  God,  shall  feel  God's  power  as  a  power  of  punishment  thai 
dashes  in  pieces ;  and  he  who,  anxious  for  salvation,  resigns  his  owi 
will  to  the  will  of  God,  receives  from  God's  mercy  or  lovingkindness. 
as  from  an  overflowing  fulness,  the  promised  reward  ot  faithfulness 
his  resignation  becomes  experience,  and  his  hoping  attainment.' 

Dean  Perowne  says  :  '  And  this  is  the  substance  of  God's  revelation, 
that  He  is  both  a  God  of  power  and  a  God  of  love.  If  we  need 


EARLY  CONCEPTIONS  OF  DEATH.  449 

•strength,  let  us  find  it  not  in  man,  who  is  but  as  a  fleeting  vapour, 
but  in  God,  who  is  Almighty.  If  we  covet  a  reward,  let  us  seek  it 
not  in  robbery  or  in  riches,  but  from  the  loving  hand  of  Him  who 
rewardeth  every  man  according  to  his  work.  This  is  the  only  truly 
worthy  representation  of  God.  Power  without  Love  is  brutality,  and 
Love  without  Power  is  weakness.  Power  is  the  strong  foundation  of 
Love,  and  Love  is  the  beauty  and  the  crown  of  Power.' 

Mercy  is  equity.  It  can  never  be  that  God  can  show  any  mercy 
that  reveals  His  indifference  to  those  eternal  principles  of  righteous- 
ness which  He  has  Himself  established.  '  A  God  all  mercy  were  a 
God  unkind.' 


Early  Conceptions  of  Death. 

JOB  x.  21,  22  :  '  Before  I  go  whence  I  shall  not  return,  even  to  the  land  of  dark- 
ness and  of  the  shadow  of  death  ;  a  land  of  thick  darkness,  as  darkness  itself;  a 
land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  without  any  order,  and  where  the  light  is  as  darkness.' 

Question. — Is  this  gloomy  view  to  be  taken  as  representing  the 
common  ideas  of  fob's  days,  or  may  we  think  it  is  only  the  depressed 
view  taken  by  a  sick  and  suffering  man  ? 

Answer. — The  miserable,  painful,  depressed  condition  of  Job  is 
to  be  taken  into  account,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  does  only 
speak  of  death  as  all  the  Old  Testament  writers  do.  Take  away  the 
poetical  form,  and  you  have  the  dreary,  hopeless  sentiment  which 
was  common  to  the  age  of  Solomon,  and  finds  expression  in  the 
prayer  of  Hezekiah.  Death  was  conceived  of  as  an  irremediable 
woe ;  severance  from  every  human  interest ;  and  entrance  upon  an 
unknown  region  which  was  feared  because  it  was  so  little  under- 
stood. 

The  Speaker  s  Commentary  has  a  full  note  on  this  passage.  '  Job 
accumulates  epithets  to  express  the  sense  of  utter  blackness  and 
desolation  of  the  state  which  he  deliberately  prefers  to  life  in  misery — 
each  word  has  its  peculiar  horror :  "  darkness,"  such  as  was  on  the 
face  of  the  waters  before  light  was  ;  "  shadow  of  death,"  a  word 
originally  meaning  "  deep  shade,"  but  modified  in  form  and  significa- 
tion so  as  to  express  the  blackness  of  death  ;  then,  returning  to  the 
same  thought,  and  bringing  out  its  full  significance,  "  a  land  gloomy 
as  blackness  itself,  the  blackness  of  the  shadow  of  death  ;"  then  the 
"  without  order,"  the  return,  as  it  were,  to  chaotic  disorder,  the  tohu 
and  bohu  preceding  creation  ;  last  of  all,  the  darkness  which,  as  it 
were,  radiates  a  hideous  mockery  of  sunlight,  no  mere  privation  of 
light,  but  an  aggressive  and  active  power  opposed  to  the  abodes 

29 


450     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

lighted  by  God's  presence  and  favour.  Here,  again,  we  feel  how 
important  it  was  that  the  utter  blankness  of  a  death  without  sensa- 
tion, followed  by  no  awakening,  should  be  realized,  in  order  that  the 
mind  might,  in  its  recoil,  grasp  the  hope  of  immortality,  and  that  the 
instinct  should  be  developed,  which  pointed  to  it  even  in  the  minds 
of  heathens.  It  is  important  to  note  that  this  view  of  the  state  after 
death  is  altogether  Hebrew,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  Semitic ;  it 
has  nothing  in  it  derived  from  or  connected  with,  the  opinions- 
current  in  Egypt,  it  is  wholly  divested  of  the  superstitious  invention, 
but  it  is  also  without  the  moonlight  of  hope,  which  cheered  the 
heathen  with  a  shadowy  Elysium  ;  it  is  simply  the  realization  of  utter 
emptiness,  a  result  in  which  it  was  impossible  that  the  mind  could 
rest,  and  which  prepared  it  for  the  full  disclosure  of  a  "  lively  hope 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  "  (i  Peter  i.  3).' 

Delitzsch  sees  in  these  exclamations  signs  of  a  depressed  mind. 
1  As  he  thinks  of  his  present  condition,  he  sees  that  God  from  the 
very  beginning  designed  to  vent  His  wrath  upon  him,  to  mark  his 
infirmities,  and  to  deprive  him  of  all  joy  in  the  consciousness  of  his 
innocence.'" 

While,  then,  we  may  say  that  Job's  idea  of  death  belongs  to  the 
sentiments  of  his  age,  the  colour  that  he  puts  on  his  expressions, 
and  their  intensity,  are  but  the  reflection  of  his  condition  of  mental 
and  bodily  distress. 

The  Direct  Agency  of  Satan. 

i  CHRONICLES  xxi.  i  :  'And  Satan  stood  up  against  Israel,  and  provoked  David 
to  number  Israel.'  Rev.  Vcr.,  in  marg.,  'an  adversary.' 

Difficulty. — To  recognise  direct  agency  of  Satan,  in  inciting  men  to 
wrong-doing,  must  relieve  men  of  responsibility. 

Explanation. — If  we  were  thinking  of  a  man's  enticing  a  fellow- 
man  to  some  wrong-doing,  we  certainly  should  regard  the  responsi- 
bility, of  the  wrong  as  shared  between  him  who  enticed,  and  him  who 
acted.  And  yet,  even  in  this  case,  the  punishment  properly  comes  on 
the  doer  of  the  wrong,  up  to  the  measure  of  his  responsibility.  We 
cannot  alter  the  conditions  of  our  moral  trial.  We  are  in  the  midst 
of  temptations  ;  we  are  susceptible  to  temptations.  Moral  goodness 
is  to  be  won  in  the  conflict  with  temptation ;  and  it  does  not  make 
any  difference  whether  the  temptations  come  from  things,  from  other 
persons,  or  from  spiritual  agencies. 

In  relation  to  this  particular  instance  of  the  '  Census,'  several  con- 
siderations must  be  borne  in  mind.  The  genius  of  the  Hebrew  led 


THE  DIRECT  AGENCY  OF  SATAN.  451 

lim  to  see  spiritual  forces  in  and  behind  everything.  To  a  Jew 
lothing  was  accounted  for  unless  he  could  see  God's  relation  to  it. 
A.nd  a  Jew  could  not  grasp  the  idea  of  an  influence  ;  he  personified 
t,  and  saw  it  as  a  person  acting.  Moreover,  in  this  case  we  have 
:\vo  persons  giving  their  explanation  of  the  same  incident,  and  both 
lave  this  genius  for  seeing  the  spiritual  force  behind  it ;  the  writer 
)f  the  account  in  Samuel  sees  God  inciting  David ;  the  writer  of 
:he  account  in  Chronicles  sees  Satan  to  be  the  inciter.  And  when 
ve  come  out  into  the  light  of  the  Christian  teaching,  we  find  the 
\postle  James  stating  the  facts  as  we  can  apprehend  them,  and 
;aying,  '  Every  man  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own 
ust  and  enticed.' 

The  '  Revised  Version,'  in  rendering  *  adversary '  for  '  Satan,7 
mggests  a  very  prosaic  explanation  of  the  incident.  The  historical 
act  may  have  been,  that  a  flatterer  belonging  to  the  court  suggested 
:he  idea  to  David,  and  so  proved  himself  to  be  a  mischief-maker,  an 
idversary. 

Kirkpatrick,  writing  on  the  passage  2  Sam.  xxiv.  i,  says :  '  The  nation 
had  sinned,  and  incurred  Jehovah's  anger,  and  He  instigated  David 
:o  an  act  which  brought  down  a  sharp  punishment  on  the  nation. 
The  statement  that  God  incited  David  to  do  what  was  afterwards 
:ondemned  and  punished  as  a  heinous  sin  cannot,  of  course,  mean 
;hat  He  compelled  David  to  sin,  but  that,  in  order  to  test  and  prove 
lis  character,  He  allowed  the  temptation  to  assault  him.  .  .  ,  The 
:>lder  record  (that  in  Samuel)  speaks  only  of  God's  permissive  action : 
:he  latter  tells  us  of  the  malicious  instrumentality  of  Satan.' 

It  should  be  noticed  that  it  is  said  *  Satan  stood  up  against  Israel' ; 
ind  his  evil  purpose  was  wrought  by  'provoking  David.'  The  case 
s  usually  treated  as  relating  to  David  only,  and  the  penalty  that  fell 
HI  the  nation  is  regarded  as  a  way  in  which  David  was  punished, 
hrough  the  humiliation  and  distress  of  his  people.  But  it  would 
;eem  to  be  more  correct  to  assume  some  occasion  of  Divine  wrath 
igainst  the  people ;  then  the  Divine  dealing  with  David  in  relation 
o  a  special  sin  at  once  illustrates,  and  finds  an  open  occasion  for,  the 
Divine  judgment. 

It  is  not  possible  to  rest  on  this  English  translation  of  a  word  as 
Satan ' — which  really  means  '  a  hostile  force,'  or  '  an  adversary  ' — any 
heories  concerning  the  existence  of  a  supreme  evil  spirit.  Those 
heories  must  be  based  on  safer  grounds  than  this  incident  can 
•ossibly  afford. 


29—2 


452      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  Old  Testament  Term  *  For  Ever/ 

ECCLESIASTES  iii.  14  :  ' I  know  that  whatsoever  God  doeth,  it  shall  be  for  ever.' 

Question. — Can  a  theological  meaning  be  properly  attached  to  this 
term  9 

Answer. — Certainly  not  that  meaning  which  doctrinal  Christi- 
anity has  associated  with  the  terms  'eternal'  and  'everlasting,'  as 
applied  to  the  future  state  of  good  or  evil  men.  The  Old  Testament 
horizon  is  limited  to  human  history :  we  may  make  inferences  of  a 
more  extended  kind,  but  we  must  carefully  distinguish  between  oui 
inferences  and  the  original  references. 

This  point  needs  our  careful  consideration.  The  term  '  for  ever 
is  an  English  term,  with  a  distinctly  modern  connotation.  It  usec 
to  represent  a  Hebrew  term,  which  also  has  a  precise  connotation 
It  may  very  well  be  that  though  '  for  ever '  is  the  best  suggestion  fo 
translating  the  Hebrew  word,  the  two  connotations  do  not  altogethe 
agree.  The  Hebrew  may  not  have  meant  by  his  word  what  we  meai 
when  we  use  the  term  'for  ever.' 

And  this  appears  to  be  the  fact.  The  Hebrew  idea  is  tha 
which  we  express  by  the  word  'permanently.'  It  implies  stability 
staying  power.  It  will  not  be  subject  to  ordinary  forces  of  deca) 
The  term  is  constantly  applied  to  purely  earthly  things,  which  bea 
no  relation  at  all  to  the  time  after  death.  The  general  meaning  c 
the  Old  Testament  term  is  '  a  long  period  of  time,  the  beginning  o 
end  of  which  is  uncertain,  or  at  least  undefined :  though  sometime 
the  period  is  not  of  great  length,  as  when  it  is  applied  to  the  lifetim 
of  a  slave,'  Exod.  xxi.  6,  etc. 

A  few  instances  of  its  use  in  the  Old  Testament  may  be  given 
The  promise  of  Canaan  to  Abraham  was,  '  To  thee  will  I  give  it,  an 
to  thy  seed  for  ever'  (Gen.  xiii.  15).  Possession  of  a  country  by 
particular  race  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  after  life.  Judah  pleadin 
with  his  father  to  trust  Benjamin  to  his  care,  uses  the  expressioi 
'  Let  me  bear  the  blame  for  ever '  (Gen.  xliii.  9).  Judah  could  on; 
bear  the  blame  as  long  as  he  lived  :  and  his  word  is  only  the  same  i 
our  'always.'  It  is  threatened  (Num.  xxiv.  20)  that  'Amalek  sha 
perish  for  ever.'  But  a  nation  only  perishes  when  its  nation 
organization  is  destroyed.  It  perishes  for  ever  when  that  corpora 
national  life  is  not  restored.  Joshua  is  said  to  have  '  burnt  Ai,  ar 
made  it  a  heap  for  ever  '  (Josh.  viii.  28),  which  can  only  mean  that  i 
was  not  again  rebuilt.  Solomon  built  the  Temple,  as  '  a  settled  pla< 
for  God  to  abide  in  for  ever ';  but  it  has  passed  away  long  sine 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TERM  « FOR  EVER:     453 

The  leprosy  was  to  cleave  to  Naaman  and  his  seed  'for  ever,' 
;hich  must  mean  'permanently.'  David  declares  he  *  will  dwell  in 
he  house  of  the  Lord  for  ever,'  and  he  must  mean  '  continuously,' 
persistently.'  The  promise  to  faithful  Jonadab  is,  'he  shall  not 
rant  a  man  to  stand  before  Me  for  ever,'  which  simply  means, 
hrough  the  long  coming  generations. 

The  passages  are  so  numerous  that  space  cannot  be  given  to  the 
engthened  list ;  which,  however,  can  be  studied  with  the  aid  of  a 
Concordance.  How  far  the  limited  Old  Testament  meanings  of  the 
erm  are  carried  over  into  the  New  Testament,  and  qualify  the 
)romises  and  threatenings  under  the  Gospel,  is  a  consideration  too 
heological,  and  too  controversial,  for  present  treatment. 


The  Fatherhood  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament. 

ISAIAH  Ixiii.  16 :  '  Doubtless  thou  art  our  father,  though  Abraham  be  ignorant 
jf  us,  and  Israel  acknowledge  us  not  ;  thou,  O  Lord,  art  our  father,  our  redeemer  ; 
hy  name  is  from  everlasting.' 

Question. — Is  this  only  a  figure  of  speech  ?  Has  it  any  doctrinal 
value  ? 

Answer. — It  is  part  of  a  highly  poetical  passage,  from  which  we 
cannot  reasonably  gather  dogmatic  teachings.  The  poetical  figures 
ire  suggestive  of  important  truths,  but  the  truths  taught  through 
poetry  belong  rather  to  sentiment  than  to  doctrine :  they  are  the 
truths  we  feel,  rather  than  the  truths  we  shape  into  sentences.  The 
figurative  character  of  the  passage  is  shown  by  the  expression, 
'  Though  Abraham  be  ignorant  of  us.'  This  is  a  strange  expression 
from  a  Jew,  in  reference  to  Jews  ;  but  it  is  a  figure  expressing  intense 
feeling,  and  really  means,  '  though  we  are  in  exile,  strangers  to  the 
Holy  Land,  and  to  the  polity  founded  by  our  fathers.' 

The  first  clause  of  the  verse,  '  Doubtless  thou  art  our  father,'  must 
be  treated  as  a  poetical  figure.  Whatever  may  be  said  about  the 
doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  it 
was  in  the  mind  of  this  writer,  or  that  it  was  a  Jewish  idea  of  God  at 
ill.  The  term  'father,'  and  the  relation  involved  in  'fatherhood,' 
were  not  at  all  the  same  to  the  Jew  as  .they  are  to  us.  The  Jew 
gloried  in  power  and  majesty  :  great,  sublime  things  moved  him ; 
ind  he  was  not  affected,  as  we  are,  by  moral  relations,  and  the  subtler 
interests  of  character.  To  him  God  was  '  a  great  God,  and  a  great 
King  above  all  gods.'  He  would  not  feel  the  infinite  attractiveness 
of  God,  as  we  feel  it  when  we  call  Him,  '  Our  Father  which  art  in 
heaven.' 


454      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

In  this  passage  now  before  us,  the  term  'father'  really  means, 
originator,  founder  :  and  the  reference  is  to  God's  relation  to  the  Jews 
as  a  race,  not  to  His  relation  to  individuals.  Father  was  constantly 
used  for  the  founder  of  a  family ;  and  in  this  sense  the  first  patriarch 
is  called  '  Father  Abraham.' 

In  Isaiah  Ixiv.  8  we  find  the  expression,  '  But  now,  O  Lord,  Thou 
.art  our  Father ;  we  are  the  clay,  and  Thou  our  ootter ;  and  we  all 
are  the  work  of  Thy  hand.'  But  here  there  is  no  more  meaning  than 
'originator.'  The  prophet  is  only  thinking  of  the  sovereign  right  a 
father  has  over  the  child  he  begets.  '  Thy  hands  have  made  us,  and 
fashioned  us,  both  as  individuals  and  as  a  nation.  Thou  hast 
lavished  Thy  labour  and  Thy  skill  upon  us.' 

Cheyne  has  the  following  note  :  '  "  Our  father."  Not  in  the  wide, 
spiritual  sense  of  the  New  Testament,  but  as  the  founder  and  pre- 
server of  the  Israelitish  nation  (see  Deut  xxxii.  6),  which  henceforth 
(carrying  out  primitive  legal  conceptions)  is  under  the  patria  potestas. 
This  is  the  constant  meaning  of  the  title  "  Father "  as  applied  to 
Jehovah;  see,  e.g.,  Exod.  iv.  22  ;  Hos.  xi.  i  ;  Isa.  i.  2  ;  Jer.  iii.  4, 
19;  xxxi.  9,  20;  Mai.  i.  6  ;  ii.  10.  The  first  example  of  the  in- 
dividualizing use  of  the  term  is  in  Sirach  xxiii.  1-4,  "  O  Lord,  Father 
and  Governor  of  my  whole  life.  ...  O  Lord,  Father  and  God  of 
my  life." ' 

J.  A.  Alexander  says :  '  This  does  not  mean  our  natural  creator, 
but  our  founder,  our  national  progenitor.' 

The  Spirits  in   Prison. 

I  PETER  iii.  19 :  'By  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison,'  etc. 

Difficulty. — This  is  surely  based  on  some  tradition^  since  the  Old 
Testament  gives  no  hint  of  the  final  place  and  condition  of  the  old- 
world  sinners. 

Explanation. — It  is  important  at  the  outset  that  we  should 
clearly  see  the  fact,  that  Scripture  nowhere  makes  the  smallest 
allusion  to  the  after-state  of  the  old-world  sinners,  who  were  destroyed 
by  the  Flood ;  nor  does  Scripture  teach  anything  at  all  concerning 
the  moral  condition,  or  opportunities,  of  those  who  are  disembodied. 
If  this  passage  does  refer  to  the  old-world  sinners,  existing  still  in  a 
disembodied  state,  it  stands  absolutely  alone;  it  is  an  altogether 
unique  passage.  This  fact  alone  would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  an 
explanation  of  a  much  simpler  character  may  be  found. 

That  simpler  explanation  may  be  submitted  for  consideration,  but 


THE  SPIRITS  IN  PRISON.  455 

he  arguments  for  and  against  it,  and  the  theories  that  find  most 
general  favour  in  relation  to  the  topic,  will  be  found  fully  given  in 
Dean  Plumptre's  volume  on  '  The  Spirits  in  Prison.' 

Augustine,  among  the  Fathers,  Aquinas,  among  the  Schoolmen, 
md  Bishop  Pearson,  among  the  Anglican  divines,  approve  of  this 
Ampler  suggestion  :  '  It  starts  with  denying  that  there  is  any  reference 
it  all  to  the  descent  into  Hades.  Christ,  it  says,  went  in  spirit,  not 
n  the  flesh — that  is,  before  His  Incarnation,  and  preached  to  the 
spirits  who  are  now  in  prison  under  condemnation,  or  were  then  in 
:he  prison-house  of  selfishness  and  unbelief,  or  simply  in  that  of  the 
body.  He  preached  in  Noah's  preaching,  and  that  preaching  was 
without  effect,  except  for  the  souls  of  Noah  and  his  household.' 

Writing  on  this  passage,  Archbishop  Leighton  says :  'This  place  is 
somewhat  obscure  in  itself,  but,  as  it  usually  happens,  made  more 
so  by  the  various  fancies  and  contests  of  interpreters,  aiming  or  pre- 
tending to  clear  it.  These  I  like  never  to  make  a  noise  of.  They 
who  dream  of  the  descent  of  Christ's  soul  into  hell,  think  this  place 
sounds  somewhat  that  way ;  but,  being  examined,  it  proves  no  way 
suitable,  nor  can,  by  the  strongest  wrestling,  be  drawn  to  fit  their 
purpose.  For  (i)  that  it  was  to  preach  He  went  thither,  they  are  not 
willing  to  avow,  though  the  end  they  assign  is  as  groundless  and 
imaginary  as  this  is.  (2)  They  would  have  His  business  to  be  with 
the  spirits  of  the  faithful  deceased  before  His  coming ;  but  here  we 
see  it  is  with  the  disobedient.  (3)  His  Spirit  here  is  the  same  with 
the  sense  of  the  foregoing  words,  which  mean  not  His  soul,  but  His 
eternal  Deity.  (4)  Nor  is  it  "  the  spirits  that  were  in  prison,"  as  they 
read  it,  but  "  the  spirits  in  prison,"  which,  by  the  opposition  of  their 
former  condition,  "  sometime,"  or  "  formerly  disobedient,"  doth  clearly 
speak  of  their  present  condition,  as  the  just  consequence  and  fruit  of 
their  disobedience.  Other  misinterpretations  I  mention  not,  taking 
it  as  agreeable  to  the  whole  strain  of  the  Apostle's  words,  that  Jesus 
Christ  did,  before  His  appearing  in  the  flesh,  speak  by  His  Spirit  in 
His  servants  to  those  of  the  foregoing  ages,  yea,  the  most  ancient  of 
them,  declaring  to  them  the  way  of  life,  though  rejected  by  the 
unbelief  of  the  most  part.  This  is  interjected  in  the  mentioning  of 
Christ's  sufferings  and  exaltation  after  them.' 

Leighton  gives,  in  a  footnote,  a  later  idea  which  he  entertained. 
He  thought  the  reference  might  be  to  the  mission  of  the  Spirit,  and 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  after  Chrisfs  resurrection. 

It  is  not  usually  recognised  that,  in  this  reference  to  the  days  of 
Noah,  St.  Peter  is  not  stating  facts,  but  using  an  illustration.  It  is 
not  his  subject,  in  any  sense,  to  explain  where  Christ  went  when  He 


456      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

died,  whom  He  met,  or  what  He  did  and  said.  Such  a  merely  curious 
inquiry  an  Apostle  would  have  resented.  St.  Peter  could  not  con- 
ceivably have  been  intending  to  teach  the  mysteries  of  Christ's 
occupation  during  the  time  of  His  death,  about  which  St.  Peter 
clearly  knew  nothing.  No  trace  of  any  information,  given  by  Christ 
Himself  on  the  matter,  can  be  found. 

It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  illustration  was  suggested  to  St 
Peter  by  the  remark  he  had  made,  '  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit,'  or, 
as  in  the  Revised  Version,  '  quickened  in  the  spirit.'  At  once  St. 
Peter  goes  off  on  a  new  line.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said  :  *  By  the  by,  it 
was  "  in  the  spirit "  that  Christ  had  gone  and  preached  to  the  old- 
world  sinners,  Then  He  used  the  agency  of  Noah  ;  but  the  message 
was  rejected,  and  but  eight  persons  were  saved.'  Out  of  this  St. 
Peter  finds  a  pointed  application  to  those  to  whom  he  wrote  :  '  Christ 
has  suffered  for  you.  Christ  is  risen  for  you.  Christ  is  preached  ta 
you.  We  plead  with  you  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  Yet 
it  may  be  with  you,  as  with  the  old-world  sinners  :  but  few,  even  of 
you,  may  be  saved.' 

What  needs  to  be  seen  is,  that  the  case  of  the  old-world  sinners  of 
Noah's  time,  and  their  wilful  rejection  of  the  Gospel  preached  to- 
them — which  Gospel  is  thought  of  as  'Christ  preaching  to  them  ' — is 
used  as  a  solemn  warning  lest  those  who  had  Christ  crucified  and 
risen  preached  to  them,  should  reject  the  grace,  and  perish  as  the 
old-world  sinners  did. 


Satan   Resisting  the  High  Priest. 

ZECHARIAH  iii.  I  :  '  And  he  showed  me  Joshua  the  high  priest  standing  before 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Satan  standing  at  his  right  hand  to  resist  him. '  Rev* 
Ver.  '  to  be  his  adversary.' 

Difficulty. — The  marginal  renderings  seem  to  prevent  our  asso- 
ciating this  Satan  with  the  chief  evil  spirit. 

Explanation.— The  marginal  reading  is,  'An  adversary  stand- 
ing at  his  right  hand  to  be  his  adversary.'  Some  renderings  give 
( accuser.' 

This  is  a  vision,  and  as  a  vision  may  be  compared  with  that  in  the 
opening  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Job.  '  Joshua  is  seen  in  vision  pre- 
paring to  offer  an  expiatory  sacrifice  on  behalf  of  the  people  in  dis- 
charge of  his  duty  as  high  priest.  But  an  adversary  intervenes,  who, 
as  usual  in  the  case  of  an  accuser,  stands  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
accused,  and  urges  that  he  has  incurred  a  ceremonial  impurity  which 
unfits  him  for  his  office  of  expiation.  This  charge  is  not  expressly 


SATAN  RESISTING  THE  HIGH  PRIEST.        457 

itated  by  the  accuser,  but  may  be  inferred  from  the  decision  of  the 
mgel  of  Jehovah,  who  appears  as  an  arbiter  or  judge.' 

No  idea  of  a  chief  evil  spirit,  such  as  we  call  Satan,  could  have 
3een  in  the  mind  of  Zechariah.  Indeed,  the  notion  is  quite  a  later 
Christian  one,  and  the  Old  Testament  use  of  the  term  *  Satan '  is 
efficiently  illustrated  by  our  Lord's  calling  Peter  a  '  Satan.'  Anyone 
>vho  hinders  from  good  work  is  an  *  adversary,'  a  '  Satan.' 

The  writer  in  Ellicotfs  Commentary  says  that  Sanballat  and  his 
companion  cannot  be  meant ;  it  must  be  o  didpoXog,  the  adversary  of 
mankind.  '  A  belief  in  a  personal  devil  was  current  among  the  Jews 
from,  at  any  rate,  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Job  to 
Talmudic  times.' 

There  are  but  four  places  in  the  Old  Testament  in  which  '  Satan ' 
is  mentioned,  and  no  one  of  these  four  can  be  applied  to  the 
Personal  Devil  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  passages  i  Chron.  xxi.  i ; 
Zech.  iii.  i,  2  ;  and  Psalm  cix.  6,  clearly  bear  no  proper  name ;  the 
word  found  should,  in  each  case,  be  translated  '  an  adversary ';  and 
any  adversary  may  be  meant.  The  passages  Job  i.  6,  12;  ii.  i,  do 
not  suggest  the  chief  of  the  devils,  but  one  of  the  divine  ministrants, 
specially  employed  in  arranging  for  the  calamities  and  afflictions 
which  are  God's  testings,  God's  discipline,  for  His  people.  And 
even  in  these  cases  the  rendering  '  the  adversary '  is  given  in  the 
margin. 

'  The  whole  Scripture  doctrine  of  Satan,  both  as  gathered  from  the 
partial  and  occasional  intimations  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  as 
developed  in  the  full  revelation  of  the  New  Testament,  is  virtually 
included  in  the  history  of  the  Fall.  It  is  true  that  the  complete 
unmasking  of  the  Tempter,  the  authoritative  identification  of  the 
Serpent  with  the  Devil,  waited  for  Gospel  times.'  —  Archdeacon 
Perowne. 

Phinehas'  Atonement. 

?P  NUMBERS  xxv.  n  :  '  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest, 
hath  turned  my  wrath  away  from  the  children  of  Israel,  while  he  was  zealous  for 
my  sake  among  them,  that  I  consumed  not  the  children  of  Israel  in  my  jealousy.' 

Question. —  Was  it  the  act  of  Phinehas,  or  the  spirit  which  inspired 
the  act,  which  constituted  the  atonement  ? 

Answer. — This  instance  is  best  understood  by  taking  along  with 
it  the  two  other  instances  of  special  atonement-making  recorded  in 
the  Pentateuch.  A  suggestive  sketch  of  the  three  cases  is  given  in 
the  Weekly  Pulpit,  vol.  vi.,  p.  51.  *  The  Mosaic  idea  of  the  word 
"  atonement  "  is  very  clearly  defined.  It  always  means  "  to  cover" 


458      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

An  "atonement"  is  exactly  this,  "a  sin-cover;"  it  is  something  that 
covers  sin  over ;  puts  it  out  of  sight ;  removes  it  from  consideration  ; 
puts  something  before  God  in  its  place.' 

The  story  connected  with  the  Golden  Calf  is  very  familiar.  (See 
Exod.  xxxii.).  We  are  told  that  God's  eye  was  upon  the  apostasy  of 
the  people,  and  His  indignation  was  aroused,  and  His  overwhelming 
judgments  threatened  to  fall.  The  sin  of  the  people  was  full  in  God's 
sight.  'And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  I  have  seen  this  people, 
and  behold  it  is  a  stiff-necked  people ;  now,  therefore,  let  Me  alone, 
that  My  wrath  may  wax  hot  against  them,  and  that  I  may  consume 
them.' 

Moses  was  moved  to  make  atonement,  to  find  some  sin-cover  to 
hide  the  transgression,  and  occupy  the  Divine  mind.  It  must  be 
some  splendid  vindication  of  the  outraged  honour  of  God :  and  it 
must  be  some  most  acceptable  act  of  devotion  and  obedience,  done 
in  the  name  of  the  people.  See,  then,  what  Moses  made  into  a  '  sin- 
cover.'  First  he  called  those  who  were  on  Jehovah's  side  to  him — 
after  destroying  the  idol-figure  in  the  most  humiliating  way  he  could 
devise — and  said  to  the  Levites  who  ranged  themselves  on  his  side, 
'  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  Put  every  man  his  sword  by  his 
side,  and  go  in  and  out  from  gate  to  gate  throughout  the  camp,  and 
slay  every  man  his  brother,  and  every  man  his  companion,  and  every 
man  his  neighbour.  And  there  fell  of  the  people  that  day  about 
three  thousand  men.'  So  Moses  covered  the  apostasy  with  a  solemn 
and  awful  vindication  of  the  honour  of  Jehovah  as  a  God  of  judgment. 
But  that  was  not  enough.  He  must  present  to  God,  on  the  people's 
behalf,  his  own  absolute  and  entire  devotion,  and  submission,  and 
obedience.  He  must  put  this  right  in  God's  sight ;  intercede  with 
Him  to  look  upon  it,  and  let  it  cover  over,  and  hide  from  His  view 
the  sin  of  the  people. 

The  second  instance  of  special  atonement  is  recorded  in  Numb, 
xvi.  46,  47.  '  The  great  religious  revolution,  which  had  substituted 
the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  and  the  services  of  the  Levites,  for  those  of 
the  fathers  and  elder  sons  of  the  community,  had  not  been  effected 
without  opposition,  and  this  came  to  a  head,  at  last,  in  a  movement 
which  might  easily  have  been  perilous.'  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram 
claimed  priestly  rights  for  themselves  and  for  their  families.  The 
whole  company  of  the  disaffected  gathered  in  the  presence  of  Moses 
and  Aaron,  and  said,  '  You  two  take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing  that 
all  the  congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  Jehovah  is 
among  them.' 

This  sin  and  rebellion  was  in  the  full  sight  of  Jehovah,  as  the 


PHINEHAS  ATONEMENT.  459 

present  King  of  the  people.  It  called  aloud  for  prompt  and  severe 
judgments.  These  judgments  began.  Moses  did  not  interfere  with 
them  while  they  fell  only  on  the  ringleaders  of  the  conspiracy ;  but 
when  the  Divinely-sent  plague  broke  out  in  the  camp,  and  the  people 
were  called  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  their  leaders,  then  Moses  hastened 
to  provide  a  sin-cover ;  something  to  thrust  in,  as  it  were,  between 
God  and  the  sin,  upon  which  He  might  look  favourably,  and  so  be 
turned  from  the  fierceness  of  His  anger.  By  his  order  Aaron  took  a 
censer,  and  put  fire  therein  from  off  the  altar,  and  put  on  incense, 
and  ran  into  the  midst  of  the  people,  and  stood  between  the  living 
and  the  dead,  and  sent  the  smoke  of  incense  up  to  God,  as  the 
-expression  of  entire  devotion  and  obedience,  and  so  he  covered  and 
made  atonement  for  the  people. 

The  third  instance  occurred  toward  the  close  of  the  wanderings, 
when  the  Israelites  were  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Moab.  Unable  to 
win  the  right  to  curse  Israel — as  Balaam  wished,  and  as  it  would  have 
paid  him  well  to  do — Balaam  persuaded  the  king  to  allow  free  inter- 
course between  his  people  and  them.  '  Let  the  Israelites  fall  into 
immorality  and  sin,  and  then  their  God  will  destroy  them,  and  your 
end  will  be  accomplished.'  The  scheme  succeeded.  The  vice  and 
iniquity  of  Israel  was  full  in  God's  sight,  and  the  immediate  execution 
of  the  Divine  judgment  was  commanded.  Some  great  public  act  of 
vindication  was  called  for;  such  a  manifest  upholding  of  the  Divine 
authority  and  holiness  as  would  make  a  'sin-cover,'  occupy  the 
Divine  attention,  and  hide  from  view  the  iniquities.  And  Phinehas 
was  the  man  to  do  it.  A  flagrant  case  of  unlawful  intercourse  had 
occurred,  and  when  he  saw  the  wicked  couple,  he  '  rose  up  from 
among  the  congregation,  and  took  a  javelin  in  his  hand,  and  he  went 
after  the  man  of  Israel  into  the  tent,  and  thrust  both  of  them  through, 
the  man  of  Israel  and  the  woman.  So  the  plague  was  stayed  from 
the  children  of  Israel.'  Phinehas  was  jealous  for  the  honour  of  his 
God ;  his  splendid  act  of  vindication  made  a  cover ;  '  he  made  an 
atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel.' 

But  manifestly  it  was  the  loyalty  and  holy  jealousy  of  the  spirit  of 
Phinehas,  rather  than  the  particular  form  of  his  vindication,  which 
was  acceptable  to  God.  It  was  what  the  act  expressed,  rather  than 
the  act  itself. 


460      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Eternal  Life. 

I  JOHN  ii.  25  :  '  And  this  is  the  promise  that  he  hath  promised  us,  even  eternal 
life.' 

Difficulty. — This  term  '  eternal'  may  be  regarded  either  as  descrip- 
tive or  as  figurative. 

Explanation. — It  is  certainly  safer  to  treat  it  as  figurative. 
Mere  continuance  is  not  the  manifestly  most  desirable  thing;  and  all 
time  measures  are  unsuitable  to  the  after-life,  time  being  strictly  one 
of  the  present  earthly  conditions  of  thought. 

As  a  figure,  the  term  '  eternal '  represents  what  we  mean  by  '  spiri- 
tual ;'  or  perhaps  it  would  be  more  precise  to  say  that  it  stands  for 
/the  highest  conceivable,'  'the  best  that  is  attainable.'  When  ap- 
plied to  '  life,'  it  suggests  full,  unhindered  life  in  God,  life  unto  God. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  tripartite  division  of  human  nature 
into  body,  animal  soul,  and  spirit,  what  is  meant  by  *  eternal  life '  can 
readily  be  apprehended.  It  is  the  Divine  quickening,  and  conse- 
quently the  holy  activity,  of  the  '  spirit '  which  man  really  is. 

Much  has  been  missed  by  the  confounding  of  the  '  eternal  life  *" 
with  the  '  after-life.'  It  may  be  found  in  the  after-spheres,  but  it 
may  also  be  found  in  the  present  earthly  spheres.  A  man  may  have 
the  eternal  life  now.  As  soon  as  this  is  clearly  seen,  the  figurative 
character  of  the  word  comes  to  view,  and  the  impossibility  of  its 
being  strictly  descriptive  is  recognised. 

There  are  many  passages  in  which  the  '  time '  figure  is  felt  to  be 
unsuitable  ;  in  them  quality  is  prominent,  and  not  mere  physical 
length.  As  instances  see  Deut.  xxxiii.  27  :  'The  eternal  God  is  thy 
refuge,'  which  is  evidently  meant  to  suggest  high  and  inspiring  esti- 
mates of  God,  as  the  infinitely  trustworthy  one.  Isa.  Ix.  15  :  the 
prophet  is  speaking  in  the  name  of  God  to  Israel  as  a  nation,  and  he 
says,  '  I  will  make  of  thee  an  eternal  excellency.'  Continuity  of 
existence  cannot  be  predicated  of  any  nation.  A  supreme  excellency 
is  evidently  meant.  St.  Paul,  in  Rom.  i.  20,  refers  to  God's  '  eternal 
power,'  and  would  impress  on  us  the  supreme  character  of  that 
power.  And  in  2  Cor.  iv.  1 7  he  writes  of  an  '  exceeding  and  eternal 
weight  of  glory.'  Save  as  a  figurative  expression,  '  an  eternal  weight' 
has  no  intelligible  meaning. 

The  following  suggestion  has  been  made,  and  it  certainly  deserves, 
a  serious  and  unprejudiced  consideration.  One  of  our  common  notes 
of  value  is  the  length  of  time  that  a  thing  will  last.  Ephemeral  things, 
are  regarded  as  worthless,  enduring  things  are  estimated  as  valuable. 


ETERNAL  LIFE.  461 

The  nettle  is  worthless,  the  oak  is  valuable.  The  gnat  of  a  summer's 
evening  is  worthless,  the  elephant  of  a  century  is  valuable.  The 
coal  that  burns  through  in  an  hour  is  comparatively  worthless,  the 
diamond  that  outlasts  all  the  generations  is  valuable. 

God,  then,  would  impress  on  us  the  very  highest  conceivable  value, 
as  attaching  to  His  gift  to  us  in  Christ  Jesus.  So  He  meets  us  on 
our  own  level,  fits  His  figure  to  our  usual  thoughts  and  estimates, 
bids  us  think  what  must  be  the  value  of  a  thing  which  can  not  only 
outlast  all  generations  but  even  outlast  all  world-stories,  and  so 
apprehend  the  infinite  value  of  that  gift  which  He  gives  to  us, 
'eternal  life.' 

The  '  eternal  life '  is,  then,  the  life  which  cannot  be  measured  by 
years  or  days,  but  is  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessedness  of  virtue. 
This  is  a  present  fact,  begun  as  soon  as  the  believer  begins  to  be  in 
Christ,  growing  more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day  as  he  walks 
more  and  more  closely  with  God,  secured  for  ever  when  he  enters 
into  his  rest,  and  perfected  in  the  glory  of  heaven.  That  this  life, 
depending  on  knowledge  of  God,  is  begun  here,  does  not  lessen  the 
reasonableness  of  its  being  perfected  hereafter,  any  more  than  its 
future  completion  prevents  its  present  beginning. 

T.  Binney  has  the  following  passage  in  one  of  his  striking  sermons  : 
'  A  question  has  been  started  with  respect  to  what  we  should  under- 
stand by  "  eternal  life."  It  is  said  that  the  term  "  eternal  "  should 
not  be  regarded  as  having  any  reference  to  duration.  It  is  to  be 
understood  as  expressive  of  the  character  or  quality  of  a  thing,  not 
of  its  continuance.  "  Eternal  life "  is  something  distinct  from,  or 
opposed  to,  what  is  natural,  earthly,  carnal.  It  is  out  of  the  reach 
of  all  terms  merely  indicative  of  time.  It  does  not  mean  "ever- 
lasting," as  if  what  it  refers  to  could  be  measured  by  hours,  or  years, 
or  centuries,  and  so,  by  being  drawn  out  without  limit,  become,  or 
be  characterized  as  eternal,  on  that  ground.  It  stands  for  what  is 
divine,  spiritual,  Godlike,  and  may  be  applied  to  what  is  possessed 
and  enjoyed  now — the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  of  man,  which  is 
"  eternal  life,"  because  of  its  distinctive  quality  and  nature.  It  is 
that  at  this  moment  wherever  it  exists,  as  much  as  it  can  ever  be,  as 
much  as  it  will  be  myriads  of  ages  hence,  and  when  time  itself  shall 
be  no  more.'  Mr.  Binney  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  word  may  involve 
the  two  ideas  of  '  nature '  and  of  *  perpetuity.' 

jFl  D.  Maurice  took  a  firm  stand  in  resisting  the  association  of  the 
idea  of  '  duration '  with  the  term  *  eternal.'  A  striking  passage  from 
his  'Theological  Essays'  maybe  given:  'The  word  "eternal,"  if 
what  I  have  said  be  true,  is  a  key-word  of  the  New  Testament.  To 


462      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

draw  our  minds  from  the  temporal,  to  fix  them  on  the  eternal,  is  the 
very  aim  of  the  Divine  economy.  How  much  ought  we  then  to 
dread  any  confusion  between  thoughts  which  our  Lord  has  taken 
such  pains  to  keep  distinct — which  our  consciences  tell  us  ought  to 
be  kept  distinct !  How  dangerous  to  introduce  the  notion  of  dura- 
tion into  a  word  from  which  He  has  deliberately  excluded  it !  And 
yet  this  is  precisely  what  we  are  in  the  habit  of  doing,  and  it  is  this 
which  causes  such  infinite  perplexity  in  our  minds.  "  Try  to  con- 
ceive," the  teachers  say,  "a  thousand  years.  Multiply  these  by  a 
thousand,  by  twenty  thousand,  by  a  hundred  thousand,  by  a  million. 
Still  you  are  as  far  from  eternity  as  ever."  Certainly  I  am  quite  as 
far.  Why,  then,  did  you  give  me  that  sum  to  work  out  ?  What 
could  be  the  use  of  it  except  to  bewilder  me,  except  to  make  me  dis- 
believe in  eternity  altogether  ?  Do  you  not  see  that  this  course  must 
be  utterly  wrong  and  mischievous  ?  If  eternity  is  the  great  reality  of 
all,  and  not  a  portentous  fiction,  how  dare  you  impress  such  a  notion 
of  fictitiousness  on  my  mind  as  your  process  of  illustration  conveys  ?" 
"  But  is  it  not  the  only  one  ?"  Quite  the  only  one,  so  far  as  I  see, 
if  you  will  bring  time  into  the  question — if  you  will  have  years  and 
centuries  to  prevent  you  from  taking  in  the  sublime  truth,  "  This  is 
life  eternal,  to  know  God"  And  so  further  on,  as  explaining  what 
is  left  when  the  idea  of  duration  is  excluded.  "  The  eternal  life  is 
the  perception  of  His  love,  the  capacity  of  loving  ;  no  greater  reward 
can  be  attained  by  any,  no  higher  or  greater  security.  The  eternal 
punishment  is  the  loss  of  that  power  of  perceiving  His  love,  the 
incapacity  of  loving  ;  no  greater  damnation  can  befall  any."  ' 

Bishop  Westcott,  writing  of  the  phrases  used  in  St.  John's  Epistles, 
says  :  '  In  considering  these  phrases  it  is  necessary  to  premise  that 
in  spiritual  things  we  must  guard  against  all  conclusions  which  rest 
upon  the  notion  of  succession  and  duration.  "  Eternal  life  "  is  that 
which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  as  v\  ovrug  tyy,  "  The  life  which  is  life  indeed  r 
(i  Tim.  vi.  10),  and  ^  £w?j  roD  Osou,  "The  life  of  God"  (Eph.  iv.  18), 
It  is  not  an  endless  duration  of  being  in  time,  but  being  of  which 
time  is  not  a  measure.  We  have,  indeed,  no  power  to  grasp  the 
idea  except  through  forms  and  images  of  sense.  These  must  be 
used,  but  we  must  not  transfer  them  as  realities  to  another  order/ 
'  The  life  which  lies  in  fellowship  with  God  and  Christ  is  spoken  of 
as  "  Eternal  life,"  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  life  of  sense  and 
time,  under  which  true  human  life  is  veiled  at  present.  Such  a  life 
of  phenomena  may  be  "  death,"  but  "  eternal  life "  is  beyond  the 
limitations  of  time,  it  belongs  to  the  being  of  God.' 


JEALOUSY  AND  REVENGE  APPLIED  TO  GOD.  463 


Jealousy  and   Revenge  applied  to   God. 

NAHUM  i.  2  :  'God  is  jealous,  and  the  Lord  revengeth  ;  the  Lord  revengeth, 
and  is  furious  ;  the  Lord  will  take  vengeance  on  his  adversaries,  and  he  reserveth 
wrath  for  his  enemies.' 

Difficulty. — As  these  terms  imply  evil  dispositions  when  applied 
to  men,  they  cannot  worthily  be  applied  to  God. 

Explanation. — The  *  Revised  Version  '  somewhat  qualifies  these 
strong  terms.  It  renders,  '  The  Lord  is  a  jealous  God  and  avengeth  • 
the  Lord  avengeth  and  is  full  of  wrath. '  The  word  avenger  brings  in 
associations  of  the  official  family  avenger  of  tribal  populations ;  the 
word  revenge  brings  in  ideas  of  private  ill  feeling.  The  strong  feelings 
of  an  official — a  king,  a  judge,  or  a  father — may  be  applied  to  God  ; 
but  the  passionate  feelings  of  the  individual  can  never  be  safely  used 
to  represent  Him.  In  the  Old  Testament  (it  needs  to  be  borne  in 
mind)  God  is  almost  always  thought  of  as  in  official  relations  He 
is  the  King-God  of  the  land  and  the  people.  A  few  psalms  prcvide 
the  principal  exceptions. 

To  apply  these  strong  terms  to  a  king,  and  associate  them  with 
his  office  of  kingship  is  at  once  to  relieve  the  difficulty.  Treating  the 
subject  theologically,  we  must  take  care  that  we  do  not  associate 
these  terms  with  God  as  a  personal  Being.  They  would  wholly  con- 
fuse our  reading  of  the  Divine  dealings  with  men.  His  official 
relations  with  Israel  were  the  illustration  of  His  spiritual  relations 
with  us;  and  so  we  must  find  what  such  feelings  in  the  King  of 
Israel  represent  in  the  King  of  Souls. 

Another  thing  requires  to  be  borne  in  mind.  Nahum's  book  is 
really  a  vision.  And  the  law  applies  to  visions  with  which  we  are 
familiar  in  relation  to  parables.  Details  must  not  be  overpressed. 
The  main  point  must  be  caught,  and  the  rest  regarded  as  drapery. 
This  vision  of  God  is  the  framework  in  which  Nahum's  message  is 
set,  and  as  a  description  of  God  must  not  be  unduly  pressed.  If  a 
man  in  a  vision  sees  God  in  particular  attitudes,  we  must  remember 
that  it  is  vision,  not  description.  Nahum  is  not  undertaking  to 
teach  who  and  what  God  is  to  the  people.  He  deals  only  with  a 
momentary  apprehension  of  God  as  related  to  his  message. 

And  another  consideration  of  vital  importance  is,  that  Nahum  is 
not  dealing  with  the  sins  of  Judah  or  Israel,  and  so  he  does  not 
describe  God  in  relation  to  God's  own  people ;  but  God  as  from  the 
point  of  view  of  heathen  nations.  '  It  is  the  almost  unique  peculiarity  of 
Nahum's  prophecy  that  it  is  devoted  to  a  single  theme — the  destruc- 
tion of  the  bloody  and  rapacious  city  and  empire  of  Nineveh,  with 


464      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

all  its  gods.  Nineveh  stood  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  as  the  most 
brutal  type  of  heathenish  abomination.'  Nahum  does  but  transfer 
the  feelings  of  the  people  to  God,  and  intensify  them.  Nahum 
thinks  God  must  have  intense  feelings  concerning  such  a  guilty, 
violent,  and  abominable  nation  as  Nineveh  was  conceived  to  be. 

On  anthropomorphic  representations  of  God  we  have  written  in 
other  paragraphs. 

The  Necessity  for  Positive   Commands. 

GENESIS  ii.  16,  17  :  'And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat :  but  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die.' 

Difficulty. — In  making  these  conditions  God  made  the  possibility 
of  sin.  If  man  had  received  no  commands  he  could  not  have  disobeyed. 

Explanation. — A  moral  being  stands  altogether  higher  in  the 
scale  of  being  than  any  existent  or  conceivable  animal.  But  we  need 
to  see  clearly  what  it  is  that  makes  the  difference  between  a  moral 
being  and  an  animal.  A  moral  being  can  apprehend  his  dependence 
upon  a  supreme  moral  being  ;  can  feel  obligation,  and  knows  that  his 
choice  must  lie,  not,  as  with  the  animal,  between  what  is  pleasant 
and  what  is  painful,  but  between  what  is  known  to  be  the  will  of 
God,  and  what  is  felt  to  be  his  own  inclinations. 

But  a  being — a  moral  being — set  under  earthly  conditions,  must 
have  the  will  of  God  presented  in  some  positive  commands,  relating 
to  some  physical  matter.  His  moral  sense  is  awakened  and  educated 
through  positive  commands.  We  call  into  exercise  the  moral  nature 
of  a  child  through  positive  commands.  A  child  can  have  no  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  until  he  is  made  aware  that  he  may  do  this,  and  that  he 
may  not  do  that.  The  more  simple  the  command  the  better.  There 
should  be  nothing  to  confuse  issues.  It  should  be  the  plainest 
question — Will  you  please  yourself,  or  will  you  obey  the  supreme 
will  of  your  Creator  ?  In  the  case  of  Adam,  the  test  of  the  tree 
became  a  'self-revelation  of  his  moral  nature,  and  that  is  figuratively 
presented  as  coming  to  '  Know  good  and  evil.' 

*  Man  was  created  a  moral  being,  but  dependent  on  Him  who 
made  him,  and  gave  him  all  things  richly  to  enjoy.  He  was  over  all 
things,  but  under  God.  And  this  was  the  possibility  under  which 
he  was  set.  He  might  hold  and  enjoy  all  under  God,  and  in 
obedience  to  His  will ;  or  he  might  hold  and  enjoy  all  according  to 
his  own  mere  sense  of  what  was  pleasant.  And  what  he  would  do 
as  a  free  being  must,  in  some  way,  be  put  to  the  test.  It  would  not 


JUDICIAL  DEADNESS.  465 

3St  him  for  God  to  tell  him  only  what  he  might  do,  because  he  was 
D  set  in  harmony  with  God's  creation  that  the  things  he  might  do 
rere  exactly  those  which  he  would  like  to  do,  and  so  to  do  them 
'ould  cost  no  questioning  or  conflict  of  will.  A  prohibition  was 
iccessary,  and  it  must  concern  some  outward  thing  which  was  every 
/ay  pleasant  and  attractive  to  his  senses  and  his  affections,  but  was 
3  be  left  alone  distinctly  on  this  ground, — God,  who  created  us,  and 
>n  whom  we  depend,  commands  us  not  to  touch  it' 

The  command  concerning  the  fruit  of  the  tree,  simple  and  childish 
.s  it  may  appear,  was  one  exactly  suited  to  the  simplicity  of  Adam 
.nd  Eve,  and  to  their  childlike  state.  If  there  was  to  be  any  trial 
>f  man's  obedience  in  Paradise,  some  special  test  was  almost 
iccessary. 

Positive  commands  were  given  in  the  child  stages  of  the  Jewish 
mtion,  and  are  essential  to  the  moral  testing  of  all  child-conditions. 


Judicial  Deadness. 

ISAIAH  vi.  10  :  '  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy, 
md  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and 
mderstand  with  their  heart,  and  convert,  and  be  healed.' 

Difficulty. — If  the  power  to  receive  impressions  be  removed  from 
nen,  their  responsibility  is  taken  away,  and  they  cannot  be  righteously 
Punished. 

Explanation. — Ndgelsbach  has  a  note  on  this  passage  which 
equires,  but  will  abundantly  repay,  careful  attention.  The  difficulty 
suggested  is  satisfactorily  explained  by  it,  and  one  of  the  chief 
nysteries  of  the  Divine  dealing  is  wisely  unfolded. 

'  In  verses  9,  10  follows,  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  Himself, 
he  commission  that  the  prophet  must  discharge.  The  manner  of 
mparting  this  commission  is  directly  the  opposite  of  what  is  usual 
imong  men  in  like  circumstances.  One  seeks,  usually,  in  giving  a 
servant  or  messenger  a  hard  commission,  to  represent  it,  at  least  at 
irst,  in  the  most  advantageous  light.  This  the  Lord  does  not  do. 
3n  the  contrary,  He  plainly  emphasizes  just  the  hardest  part.  He 
icts  as  if  the  prophet  were  to  have  nothing  joyous  to  announce,  but 
unly  judgment  and  hopeless  hardening.  Isaiah  is  called  the  Evangelist 
)f  the  Old  Testament.  But  there  is  not  a  trace  of  it  found  here.  It 
s  not  at  once  said  even  that  he  shall  warn,  exhort,  threaten.  But, 
overleaping  all  intermediate  members,  only  the  sorrowing  effect  is 
emphasized,  and  that  with  such  pointedness,  that  what  in  truth  can 
DC  only  an  unintended  effect,  appears  as  directly  designed.  It  is  as 


466      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

if  the  Lord  would  give  the  intrepid  man  who  had  said,  "  Here  am  I, 
send  me,"  to  understand  at  once  that  he  would  require  all  his  boldness 
in  order  to  carry  through  the  commission  he  undertook. 

*  Grammatically,  the  words  offer  almost  no  difficulty.  The  infinitive 
absolute  in  verse  9  cannot  have  an  intensive  meaning,  as  though  the 
Lord  had  said,  Hear  and  see  well,  with  effort,  zeal,  and  diligence. 
For  then  must  they  even  attain  to  understanding.  But  the  Lord 
would  say,  Spite  of  the  much  and  ceaseless  hearing,  they  shall  still 
understanding  nothing.  This  ceaseless  but  still  fruitless  hearing  is 
only  the  correlative  of  that  ceaseless  but  fruitless  preaching  of  which 
Jeremiah  so  often  speaks  (Jer.  vii.  13,  25 ;  xi.  7,  etc.).  The  prophet 
never  spoke  to  the  people  such  words  as  we  read  in  verse  9.  There- 
fore it  could  not  be  the  meaning  of  the  Lord  that  he  should  so  speak. 
But  the  Lord  would  say,  Whatever  thou  mayest  say  to  this  people, 
say  it  not  in  the  hope  of  being  understood  and  regarded,  but  say  it 
with  the  consciousness  that  thy  words  shall  remain  not  understood, 
and  not  regarded,  although  they  might  be  understood  and  regarded ; 
and  that  consequently  they  must  serve  to  bring  out  the  complete 
unfolding  of  that  hardness  of  heart  that  exists  in  this  people,  and 
thereby  be  a  testimony  against  this  people,  and  a  basis  of  judgment. 
Thus  (verse  10)  it  is  not  meant  that  the  prophet  shall  do  what  is  the 
devil's  affair,  that  is,  positively  and  directly  lead  men  off  to  badness 
and  godlessness.  Rather,  the  Lord  can  ever  want  only  the  reverse 
of  this. 

'  If,  then,  it  says — "  harden  the  heart,  deafen  the  ear,  plaster  up  the 
eyes,  that  they  may  not  see,  nor  hear,  nor  take  notice,  and  be  con- 
verted to  their  salvation,"  still  this  form  of  speech  seems  to  me  to  be 
chosen  for  the  sake  of  the  prophet.  There  is  a  great  comfort  to  him 
in  it.  For  what  is  sadder  for  a  man  of  God  than  to  see  day  after 
day,  and  year  after  year,  pass  away  without  any  fruit  of  his  labour ;  in 
fact,  with  evidence  that  things  grow  worse  rather  than  better  ?  Is  it 
not  for  such  a  case  a  mighty  comfort  to  be  able  to  say,  That  is  precisely 
what  the  Lord  predicted,  yea,  expressly  indicated  as  His  relative  and 
previous  intention  ?  Thus  one  sees  that  he  has  not  laboured  in  vain, 
but  that  he  has  performed  his  task. 

'  And  inasmuch  as  that  judgment  is  still  only  a  transition  point,  and 
by  the  wonderful  wisdom  of  the  Lord  shall  become  a  forerunner  ot 
higher  development  of  salvation,  so  the  servant  of  God  can  say  this 
for  his  comfort,  that  even  out  of  the  judgment  of  hardening,  that  it 
is  his  part  to  provoke,  salvation  shall  grow.' 

Henderson  explains  in  a  less  involved  way  :  '  The  passage  in  effect 
contains  nothing  more  than  a  prediction  of  the  obduracy  of  the  Jews, 


JUDICIAL  DEADNESS.  467 

and  the  consequences  by  which  it  would  be  followed :  only  it  is 
expressed  in  a  form  which  indicates  strong  feeling  on  the  part  of  the 
speaker,  and  a  persuasion  that  such  would  infallibly  be  their  condi- 
tion. This  mode  of  speech  is  not  uncommon  even  in  modern 
languages,  when  a  person  in  a  state  of  excitement,  wishing  to  intimate 
his  conviction  of  the  certainty  of  any  action  of  which  he  disapproves, 
gives  a  peremptory  order  that  it  should  be  performed.' 

Dean  Plumptre  says  :  *  The  thought  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
"hardening"  of  Pharaoh's  heart  (Exod.  viii.  19;  ix.  34.  etc.),  and 
that  of  Sihon  (Deut.  ii.  30).  It  implies  the  reckless  headstrong  will' 
which  defies  restraint  and  warnings.  So  the  poets  of  Greece,  in  their 
thoughts  as  to  the  Divine  government  of  the  world,  recognised  the 
truth  that  there  is  a  judicial  blindness,  and,  as  it  were,  insanity  of 
will  that  comes  as  the  consequence  of  sinful  deeds  (y£sch.,  Agam., 
37°'386).  The  mediaeval  adage,  "Quern  Deus  vult  perdere  prius 
dementat"  (whom  the  gods  would  destroy  they  first  dement),  ex- 
presses one  aspect  of  the  same  law ;  but  the  "  vult  perdere "  is 
excluded  by  the  clearer  revelation  of  the  Divine  purpose  (Ezek. 
xviii.  23;  i  Tim.  ii.  4;  2  Peter  ii.  9),  as  "not  willing  that  any 
should  perish." ' 

The  Speakers  Commentary  quotes  the  following  striking  sentences 
from  Mr.  Hutton's  *  Essays ' :  '  When  civilization  becomes  corrupt, 
and  men  are  living  below  their  faith,  I  think  it  may  often  be  in  mercy 
that  God  strikes  the  nations  with  blindness  ;  that  the  only  remedy  lies 
in  thus  taking  away  an  influence  which  they  resist,  and  leaving  them 
to  learn  the  stern  lesson  of  self-dependence.' 

Miiller,  the  author  of  the  '  Doctrine  of  Sin,'  says  :  '  No  one  can 
withdraw  himself  from  the  range  and  influence  of  God's  revelations- 
without  altering  his  moral  status.' 

What  is  a  Soul-Sin  ? 

LEVITICUS  iv.  2  :  '  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  If  a  soul  shall  sin- 
through  ignorance  against  any  of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  concerning, 
things  which  ought  not  to  be  done,  and  shall  do  against  any  of  them.'  Rev.  Ver. 
reads  thus,  '  If  anyone  shall  sin  unwittingly,'  marg.,  '  through  error.' 

Question. — Can  a  reasonable  distinction  be  made  between  body- 
sins  and  soul-sins  ? 

Answer. — Such  a  distinction  need  not  be  present  in  connection, 
with  this  and  the  related  passages.  The  term  '  soul '  here  is  only 
equivalent  to  'person,'  'individual.'  But  our  fuller  and  more  scien- 
tific estimate  of  human  sin  enables  us  to  make  the  distinction.  A 
'  soul-sin  '  is  properly  one  in  which  a  man's  will  is  active,  and  controls 

30—2 


468      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  conduct.  A  '  body-sin  '  is  one  in  which  the  will  is  dormant,  or 
is  mastered,  and  bodily  appetite,  or  habit,  or  passion,  controls  the 
conduct.  The  penalties  of  wrong-doing — that  is,  the  material  penal- 
ties— come  on  all  wrongdoers  ;  but  the  particular  Divine  judgments 
— the  spiritual  penalties — come  only  on  those  who  sin  with  their 
wills,  whose  souh  sin. 

Intimation  of  this  distinction  is  found  in  our  Lord's  teaching  of 
His  disciples  concerning  '  sins  of  will '  and  *  sins  of  frailty.'  '  He 
that  is  washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet.'  And  St.  John 
appears  to  have  this  in  mind  when  he  so  carefully  separates  between 
the  'sin  unto  death  '  and  the  '  sin  not  unto  death  '  (i  John  v.  16). 

The  verse  placed  at  the  head  of  this  article  defines  the  kind  of  sin 
for  which  sin-offerings  were  accepted.  There  is  a  marked  distinction 
to  be  made  between  sins  of  ignorance,  which  could  be  removed  by 
the  sin-offering,  and  sins  of  presumption,  which  cut  off  the  perpetrator 
from  among  the  people. 

Rev.  Samuel  Clark,  M.A.,  in  Speaker's  Commentary,  says  :  '  The 
distinction  is  clearly  recognised  (Ps.  xix.  12,  13,  and  Heb.  x.  26,  27). 
It  seems  evident  that  the  classification  thus  indicated  refers  imme- 
diately to  the  relation  of  the  conscience  to  God,  not  to  outward 
penalties,  nor  immediately  to  outward  actions.  The  presumptuous 
sinner,  literally,  he  who  sinned  'with  a  high  hand,'  might  or  might 
not  have  committed  such  a  crime  as  to  incur  punishment  from  the 
civil  law ;  it  was  enough  that  he  had,  with  deliberate  purpose,  rebelled 
against  God  (see  Prov.  ii.  13-15),  and  ip >so  facto  was  "cut  off  from 
among  his  people,"  and  alienated  from  the  Divine  covenant.  But 
the  other  kind  of  sin,  that  for  which  the  sin-offering  was  appointed, 
was  of  a  more  complicated  nature.  It  appears  to  have  included  the 
entire  range  of  "  sins,  negligences,  and  ignorances  "  for  which  we  are 
accustomed  to  ask  forgiveness.  It  is  what  the  Psalmist  spoke  of, 
"  Who  can  understand  his  errors  ?  Cleanse  Thou  me  from  secret 
faults."  When  he  examined  his  heart,  he  found  his  offences  multiply 
to  such  an  extent  that  he  felt  them  to  be  beyond  calculation,  and  so 
prayed  to  be  cleansed  from  those  which  were  concealed  not  only 
from  others,  but  from  himself. 

'  It  was  not  the  outward  form  of  the  offence  which  determined  the 
class  to  which  it  belongs.  It  might  have  been  merely  the  indulgence 
of  sinful  thought ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  might  have  been  a  gross 
offence  in  its  external  aspect,  but  if  it  was  not  dearly  premeditated  as 
a  sin  .  .  .  the  man  might  bring  the  symbol  of  his  repentance  to  the 
altar,  and  the  priest  was  to  make  atonement  for  him.' 


ANGEL   WORSHIP.  469 


Angel  Worship. 

COLOSSIANS  ii.  1 8  (Rev.  Ver.} :  '  Let  no  man  rob  you  of  your  prize  by  a  volun- 
tary humility  and  worshipping  of  the  angels.' 

Question. — Can  the  custom  which  is  here  referred  to  be  ex- 
plained ? 

Answer. — There  is  but  little  known  concerning  the  Essenes, 
whose  teachings  and  practices  appear  to  be  referred  to  by  the  apostle. 
Bishop  Lightfoot  gathers  up  all  the  information  that  is  available  in 
his  invaluable  introduction  to  his  work  on  the  Colossians.  From 
this  may  be  taken  the  points  directly  relating  to  this  subject. 

The  oath  of  admission  which  gave  a  novice  the  full  privileges  of 
the  order  of  the  Essenes,  pledges  him  to  '  guard  carefully  the  books  of 
their  sect,  and  the  names  of  the  angels.  It  may  be  reasonably  sup- 
posed that  more  lurks  under  this  last  expression  than  meets  the  ear. 
This  esoteric  doctrine,  relating  to  angelic  beings,  may  have  been 
another  link  which  attached  Essenism  to  the  religion  of  Zoroaster. 
At  all  events  we  seem  to  be  justified  in  connecting  it  with  the  self- 
imposed  service  and  worshipping  of  angels  at  Colossse,  and  we  may 
well  suspect  that  we  have  here  a  germ  which  was  developed  into  the 
Gnostic  doctrine  of  aeons  or  emanations.' 

*  We  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  the  apostle  has  in  view  the  doctrine 
of  intermediate  agencies,  regarded  as  instruments  in  the  creation  and 
government  of  the  world.  Though  this  tenet  is  not  distinctly  men- 
tioned, it  is  tacitly  assumed  in  the  teaching  which  St.  Paul  opposes 
to  it  Against  the  philosophy  of  successive  evolutions  from  the 
Divine  nature,  angelic  mediators  forming  the  successive  links  in  the 
chain  which  binds  the  finite  to  the  infinite,  he  sets  the  doctrine  of 
the  one  Eternal  Son,  the  Word  of  God  begotten  before  the  worlds.' 

Speculations  on  the  nature  of  intermediate  spiritual  agencies — 
their  names,  their  ranks,  their  offices — were  rife  in  the  schools  of 
Judaeo-Gnostic  thought.  *  Thrones,  dominations,  princedoms,  virtues, 
powers ' — these  formed  part  of  the  spiritual  nomenclature  which  they 
had  invented  to  describe  different  grades  of  angelic  mediators.  .  .  . 
Hence  the  worship  of  angels,  which  the  false  teachers  inculcated, 
was  utterly  wrong  in  principle.  The  motive  of  this  angelolatry  is 
not  difficult  to  imagine.  There  was  a  show  of  humility,  for  there 
was  a  confession  of  weakness  in  this  subservience  to  inferior  media- 
torial agencies.  It  was  held  feasible  to  grasp  at  the  lower  links  of 
the  chain  which  bound  earth  to  heaven,  when  heaven  itself  seemed 
far  beyond  the  reach  of  man.  The  successive  grades  of  intermediate 


470      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

beings  were  as  successive  steps  by  which  man  might  mount  the  ladder 
leading  up  to  the  throne  of  God.' 

Ellicott  says :  '  The  "  voluntary  humility "  here  is  not  proper 
Christian  humility,  but  a  false  perverted  lowliness,  which  deemed 
God  was  so  inaccessible  that  He  could  only  be  approached  through 
the  mediation  of  inferior  beings.'  And  he  tells  us  that  Theodoret 
notices  the  practice  of  worshipping  angels  as  existing  in  Phrygia  and 
Pisidia,  and  it  seems  that  even  in  modern  times  the  worship  of  the 
Archangel  in  that  district  has  not  become  extinct. 

Molech  and  his  Rites. 

LEVITICUS  xx.  2  :  '  Again  thou  sh alt  say  to  the  children  of  Israel,  Whosoever 
he  be  of  the  children  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn  in  Israel,  that  giveth 
any  of  his  seed  unto  Molech  ;  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  :  the  people  of  the 
land  shall  stone  him  with  stones.' 

Question. — Can  any  satisfactory  explanation  be  given  of  the 
extreme  severity  of  the  Divine  injunctions  concerning  this  particular 
form  of  idolatry  ? 

Answer. — The  characteristic  rite  of  the  Molech  worship  was  the 
offering  of  the  first-born  sons  by  fire.  It  has  indeed  been  suggested 
that  the  children  were  only  passed  over  a  fire,  as  an  act  of  conse- 
cration, but  the  references  in  Scripture  to  the  customs  of  the 
Ammonites  clearly  indicate  that  the  victims  were  sacrificed.  Any 
form  of  human  sacrifice  was  repulsive  to  Jehovah,  but  this  form  was 
in  an  especial  manner  repulsive,  and  peculiarly  mischievous  if  intro- 
duced among  the  Israelites,  because  the  primary  claim  of  Jehovah 
upon  His  people  was  for  the  surrender  of  their  first-born  sons  to 
Himself.  To  take  what  was  specially  His  and  give  it  to  another 
was  robbery ;  to  give  it  to  a  rival  deity  was  open  insult.  This 
sufficiently  accounts  for  the  severity  of  the  injunction. 

It  does  not  quite  appear  why  this  particular  form  of  idolatry 
should  have  been  so  attractive  to  the  Israelites.  The  association 
of  the  injunctions  respecting  Molech,  both  here  and  in  chap,  xviii., 
suggest  that  strange  forms  of  immorality  and  sensual  license  were 
connected  with  the  Molech  ceremonies. 

*  The  rites  of  this  God  are  derived  by  a  very  simple  mental  process 
from  the  most  obvious  aspects  of  the  sun  as  the  quickening  and  the 
consuming  power  in  Nature.  The  child  offered  to  Molech  was 
offered  to  the  god  by  whom  he  was  generated,  and  as  the  most 
precious  of  all  the  fruits  of  the  earth  for  which  his  genial  aid  was 
implored,  and  his  destructive  intensity  deprecated.' 

'  The  practices  appear  to  have  been   essentially  connected  with 


MOLECH  AND  HIS  RITES.  47 1 

nagical  arts,  probably  also  with  unlawful  lusts The  rite  in 

.he  time  of  Moses  belonged  to  the  region  rather  of  magic  than  of 
definite  idolatrous  worship  ;  and  it  may  have  been  practised  as  a 
lustral  charm,  or  fire-baptism,  for  the  children  of  incest  and  adultery. 
Its  connection  with  the  children  of  Ammon,  the  child  of  incest,  may 
be  worth  noticing  in  reference  to  this  suggestion.' 

Dr.  Ginsburg  records  the  following  graphic  traditional  account  of ' 
this  idol  and  its  worship,  but  it  belongs  to  the  later  time  of  Solomon 
rather  than  the  earlier  time  of  Moses :  *  Our  sages  of  blessed 
memory  say  that  whilst  all  other  idols  had  temples  in  Jerusalem, 
Molech  had  his  temple  outside  Jerusalem,  in  a  place  by  itself.  It 
was  a  brass  and  hollow  image,  bull-headed,  with  arms  stretched  out 
like  a  human  being  who  opens  his  hands  to  receive  something  from 
his  neighbour.  Its  temple  had  seven  compartments,  into  which  the 
offerers  went  according  to  their  respective  gifts.  If  one  offered  a 
fowl,  he  went  into  the  first  compartment ;  if  a  sheep,  into  the  second  ; 
if  a  lamb,  into  the  third ;  if  a  ram,  into  the  fourth  ;  if  a  bullock,  into 
the  fifth ;  if  an  ox,  into  the  sixth ;  and  if  he  offered  his  son,  he  was 
conducted  into  the  seventh  compartment.  He  first  kissed  the  image, 
as  it  is  written,  "  let  the  sacrificers  of  men  kiss  the  calf"  (Hos.  xii.  2). 
Whereupon  a  fire  was  kindled  in  Molech,  until  its  arms  became  red 
hot ;  the  child  was  then  put  into  its  hands,  and  drums  were  beaten 
to  produce  tremendous  noises,  so  as  to  prevent  the  shrieks  of  the 
child  from  reaching  the  father's  ears,  lest  he  should  be  moved  with 
pity  towards  his  offspring.' 

The  Divine  Election. 

ROMANS  ix.  1 1  :  '  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any 
good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not 
of  works  but  of  him  that  calleth.' 

Question. — Can  we  limit  the  Divine  election  to  natural  disposition 
and  faculty r,  and  to  earthly  position  and  work,  or  must  we  assume  it  to 
include  character  and  destiny  ? 

Answer. — Probably  the  contentions  which  have  arisen  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject  are  due  to  the  fact  that  election  has  been 
thought  of  in  its  relation  to  privilege,  rather  than  in  its  relation  to 
service.  The  prominence  of  the  idea  of  privilege  has  tended  to 
separate  and  isolate  men,  giving  a  conscious  superiority  to  those  who 
imagined  that  the  privilege  was  exclusively  theirs. 

The  truth  of  the  Divine  election  must  be  treated  on  the  basis  of 
the  foundation  fact,  that  God  is  the  God  of  the  whole  earth ;  and 
'all  souls  are  His.'  Every  creature  God  makes  is  of  supreme  interest 


472      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

to  Him ;  and  those  notions  of  favouritism,  preferences,  and  petting, 
which  are  so  familiar  to  men,  must  never  for  one  moment  be  allowed 
to  affect  our  ideas  of  the  just  and  holy  God,  who  is  the  Father-God 
of  the  whole  race. 

What  we  can  plainly  see  in  the  Divine  dealings  with  races,  nations, 
families,  and  individuals,  is  a  Divine  selection  of  some  for  special 
forms  of  service  in  relation  to,  and  for  the  benefit  of,  the  others. 
But  the  selection  of  a  nation,  or  an  individual,  for  some  particular 
place  of  service,  is  no  indication  of  the  Divine  favour  to  that  nation 
or  individual.  The  endowments,  or  the  dispositions,  of  the  nation  or 
the  individual  fit  them,  in  the  Divine  arrangement,  for  that  parti- 
cular place  of  service.  If  men  are  pleased  to  attach  the  idea  of 
special  privilege  to  certain  positions  and  forms  of  work,  they  have 
no  right  to  say  that  God  designed  to  give  those  special  persons  that 
privilege.  He  designed  to  give  them  a  certain  duty.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  election  to  privilege.  There  is  only  selection  for  duty. 
And  we  associate  with  God's  selections  our  notions  of  privilege. 

Thus  Greece  was  just  as  truly  the  elect  of  God — selected  by  God 
— for  the  work  of  leading  the  world  in  art ;  Rome  was  just  as  truly 
the  elect  of  God  for  the  work  of  leading  the  world  in  government ; 
as  Israel  was  the  elect  of  God  for  the  work  of  leading  the  world  in 
religion.  The  individual  genius  to-day  is  as  truly  the  elect  of  God 
for  His  work  in  music,  or  poetry,  or  statesmanship,  as  for  His  work 
in  pulpits.  Through  all  the  ages,  the  Divine  selections  have  been 
made,  and  those  who  seem  to  be  the  world's  leaders,  are  only  those 
fitted  for  the  higher  trusts,  and  therefore  having  them  committed  to 
them. 

From  this  point  of  view  it  becomes  clear  that  God's  election  con- 
cerns disposition  and  endowment,  and  consequently  position  and 
service.  But  the  Divine  election  should  never  be  so  presented  as 
to  assume  that  it  relates  to  character,  which  every  man  makes  for 
himself;  or  to  destiny,  which  is  the  final  recognition  of  the  character 
which  a  man  has  moulded  out  of  his  life's  story. 

Jacob's   Power   over  the   Angel. 

HOSEA  xii.  3,  4  (Rev.  Ver. )  :  '  And  in  his  manhood  he  had  power  with  God  ; 
yea,  he  had  power  over  the  angel,  and  prevailed  :  he  wept,  and  made  supplication 
unto  him.' 

Question. —  Will  this  prophetic  reference  help  to  explain  the 
most  mysterious  incidents  in  Jacobs  life ;  or  must  we  take  it  simply  as 
an  illustration  of  the  power  of  prayer  ? 

Answer. — When  a  moral  writer  uses  an  historical,  or  traditional 


JACOB'S  POWER  OVER  THE  ANGEL.  473 

event  by  way  of  illustration,  we  expect  to  find  him  indifferent  to  the 
details  of  the  event,  but  deeply  interested  in  the  moral  bearings  of  it, 
the  moral  lessons  involved  in  it.  And  this  we  find  is  the  case  with 
Hosea,  who  keeps  a  distinctly  moral  end  in  view.  He  is  even 
inexact  in  his  quotation,  adding  to  the  Old  Testament  record  that 
'  Jacob  wept ';  which  has  suggested  that  he  may  have  had  a  different 
tradition  of  Jacob's  conflict  to  that  which  has  come  down  to  us.  We 
need,  however,  only  see  that,  being  supremely  concerned  about  the 
application  of  his  illustration,  he  gave  the  illustration  in  a  general 
form,  without  showing  any  anxiety  to  repeat  exactly  the  old  record. 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  in  a  mere  illustration,  used  for 
another  and  distinct  purpose,  explanations  of  that  which  forms  the 
substance  of  the  illustration.  The  general  fact,  which  Hosea  wanted 
for  his  purpose,  was  that  in  a  time  of  extremity  the  second  father  of 
the  race  had  shown  what  can  be  accomplished  by  earnest  waiting 
on  God.  Hosea  is  seeking  to  convict  the  Israelites  of  looking  for 
human  help  in  their  time  of  need,  and  not  waiting  on  God  as  their 
race-father  had  done. 

Hosea's  argument  has  been  thus  stated  :  '  To  see  the  relevancy 
of  this  reference  which  Hosea  makes  to  Jacob's  wrestling,  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  the  justly  offended  Esau  had  in  the  Divine  Mind 
his  counterpart  —  namely,  the  righteous  displeasure  with  which 
Jehovah  regarded  those  treacherous  wiles,  which  His  servant,  beloved 
as  he  was,  had  been  guilty  of.  It  was  only  upon  his  repentance  and 
earnest  solicitation  that  Jacob  was  forgiven  and  became  "  Israel." 
Let  "  Jacob  "  (as  in  verse  2),  who  now  likewise  needed  deliverance 
from  most  imminent  danger,  employ  the  same  arts  of  repentance  and 
prayer,  and  he,  too,  would  be  forgiven  and  owned  as  Israel.' 

It  is  not  possible  to  explain  satisfactorily  inform  which  the  night- 
scene  at  Jabbok  took.  Everything  in  the  record  indicates  the  actual 
appearance  of  a  man,  and  an  actual  bodily  wrestling :  and,  recalling 
the  manifestations  of  the  Angel  Jehovah  in  human  form  to  Abraham, 
we  need  feel  no  difficulty  in  treating  the  scene  as  a  real  one,  and  the 
wrestling  as  that  of  two  actual  men.  But  some  devout  commentators 
prefer  to  regard  the  scene  as  a  vision,  similar  to  that  of  the  ladder  at 
Bethel.  It  may  have  been  a  dream  accompanied,  as  dreams  some- 
times are,  by  convulsive  muscular  action,  and  this  involved  straining 
the  sinew  of  the  thigh.  In  this  view  we  may  more  readily  recognise 
the  likeness  of  this  conflict  to  the  spiritual  struggles  which  take 
place  in  the  experience  of  men  at  the  present  day. 

F.  W.  Robertson  says  '  that  the  most  honest  and  simple  way  is  to 
confess  that  we  cannot  understand  the  historical  fact  ;  but  this  need 


474      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

not  prevent  our  receiving  the  underlying  spiritual  truths — the  truth  of 
God's  guidance  and  protection,  the  truth  that  the  struggle  to  know 
and  to  feel  after  God  is  the  conflict  of  our  whole  life.' 

The   Unpardonable   Sin. 

MATTHEW  xii.  31  (Rev.  Fer.)  :  'Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  Every  sin  and 
blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men  ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  shall 
not  be  forgiven.' 

Question. — Is  it  possible  to  find  the  reason  for  this  particular  sin 
being  treated  as  unpardonable  ? 

Answer. — This  subject  is  so  familiar,  and  has  been  treated  from 
so  many  points  of  view,  that  it  is  introduced  here  only  for  the  sake 
of  a  suggestion  which  may  show  how  unlikely  it  is  that  the  conditions 
which  Christ's  words  met  can  be  repeated  in  these  days.  The  truth 
seems  to  be,  that  our  Lord  addressed  certain  particular  persons,  and 
that  their  state  of  mind  made  their  sin  to  be  unpardonable.  When 
we  see  who  and  what  those  persons  were,  we  find  they  made  a  class 
by  themselves,  and  our  Lord's  words  express  the  Divine  judgment  on 
the  class. 

The  sin  was  not  so  much  an  act,  as  a  state  of  mind.  There  must 
be  conditions  of  mind  and  feeling  on  which  forgiveness  must  depend. 
It  would  not  do  a  person  any  good  to  forgive  him  if  he  was  in  an  im- 
penitent, or  in  an  unforgiving,  or  in  a  malicious  state  of  mind.  You 
cannot  forgive  such  persons.  You  may  feel  forgiving  towards  them  ; 
but  they  cannot  receive  the  forgiveness.  Their  sinful  state  of  mind 
is  unpardonable. 

The  remarks  of  our  Lord  are  recorded  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke;  but  from  Mark's  account  we  take  the  hint  which  seems 
specially  suggestive  and  helpful  (Mark  iii.  22-30). 

Mark  carefully  notices  that  the  severe  and  searching  words  of  our 
Lord  followed  upon  the  action  of  certain  of  Hi's  'friends' — possibly 
'  relatives  ' — who  had  taken  up  the  idea  that  he  was  mad,  and  must 
be  restrained.  But  Mark  even  more  directly  connects  the  teaching 
with  the  presence  of  certain  scribes  from  Jerusalem,  who  had  come 
down  in  a  spirit  of  enmity  to  Christ,  and  were  fully  resolved  not  to 
be  persuaded  to  believe  in  Him  by  anything  they  might  see  or 
hear. 

That  is  the  state  of  mind  which  is  hopeless  and  unpardonable  sin. 
That  is  sinning  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Ghost  works 
gracious  persuasions  in  men's  hearts,  through  the  agency  of  Christ's 
life,  and  words,  and  deeds.  But  if  a  man  fully  resolves — sets  his  will 
up — against  being  persuaded,  plainly  it  is  not  just  Christ  who  is 


DISPUTE  OVER  THE  BODY  OF  MOSES.        475 

•esisted,  it  is  the  Holy  Ghost  who  is  resisted ;  and  men  in  such  a 
state  of  mind  and  will,  simply  cannot  be  pardoned  :  for  pardoning  is 
3ne  of  the  gracious  workings  of  that  very  Holy  Ghost  whom  they  are 
resisting. 

This  suggestion  may  be  followed  through  by  careful  observation  of 
"he  passages.  The  sin  is  only  repeated  now  in  those  who  determinedly 
resist  the  persuasions  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  working  through  the  records 
left  of  Christ,  and  the  preachings  of  the  servants  of  Christ. 


Dispute  Over  the  Body  of  Moses. 

JUDE  9  (Rev.  Ver.) :  'But  Michael  the  archangel,  when  contending  with  the 
devil  he  disputed  about  the  body  of  Moses,  durst  not  bring  against  him  a  railing 
judgment,  but  said,  The  Lord  rebuke  thee.' 

Difficulty. — It  is  impossible  to  conceive  what  occasion  there  could 
be  for  having  any  dispute  about  the  '  body  of  Moses' 

Explanation. — Accepting  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle,  we  may 
say  that  various  legends  and  traditions  were  in  existence  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  and  were  matters  of  common  Jewish  knowledge. 
The  apostles,  naturally  enough,  used  these  for  purposes  of  illustra- 
tion, but  their  doing  so  in  no  way  involves  their  affirmation  of  the 
truth  of  the  legend  or  tradition.  It  needs  to  be  quite  clearly  appre- 
hended that  the  illustrative  use  of  a  thing  in  a  speech  or  writing 
carries  no  guarantee  of  the  truth  of  the  thing.  Several  puzzling 
things  in  Holy  Scripture  would  be  explained  if  this  were  fully  under- 
stood. An  illustration  illustrates  ;  it  is  enough  if  it  is  effective  to  its 
end ;  the  truth  or  otherwise  of  it  is  quite  a  .secondary  considera- 
tion. 

Jude  evidently  refers  to  something  that  was  familiar  to  his  readers. 
Now  the  Bible  preserves  nothing  that  can  conceivably  be  twisted 
into  the  support  of  such  a  legend  as  this.  *  No  tradition,  precisely 
corresponding  with  this  statement,  is  found  in  any  Rabbinic  or 
apocryphal  book  now  extant,  not  even  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  from 
which  Jude  has  drawn  so  largely  in  other  instances '  (ver.  6,  14). 
(Ecumenius,  indeed,  writing  in  the  tenth  century,  reports  a  tradition 
that  Michael  was  appointed  to  minister  at  the  burial  of  Moses,  and 
the  devil  urged  that  his  murder  of  the  Egyptian  (Exod.  ii.  12)  had 
deprived  him  of  the  r'ght  of  sepulture,  and  Origen  states  that  the 
record  of  the  dispute  was  found  in  a  lost  apocryphal  book,  known  as 
'  The  Assumption  of  Moses ';  but  in  both  these  instances  it  is  possible 
that  the  traditions  have  grown  out  of  the  words  of  St.  Jude  instead 
of  being  the  foundation  on  which  they  rested.  Rabbinic  legends, 


476      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

however,  though  they  do  not  furnish  the  precise  fact  to  which  St.  Jude 
refers,  show  that  a  whole  cycle  of  fantastic  stories  had  gathered 
round  the  brief,  mysterious  report  of  the  death  of  Moses  in  Deut- 
xxxiv.  5,  6. 

It  should  be  carefully  noticed  that  the  name  Michael,  for  an  angel 
or  archangel,  does  not  appear  until  Daniel  x.  21.  And  it  is  in  the 
*  Book  of  Enoch '  that  he  is  prominent,  as  the  '  merciful,  the  patient, 
the  holy  Michael.' 

It  has  been  wisely  said  that  '  reverent,  and  therefore  cautious, 
theories  of  inspiration,  need  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  an  un- 
historical  incident  being  cited  as  an  illustration  or  a  warning.' 

Objectors  have  fastened  upon  this  passage  and  treated  it  with 
ridicule.  They  say,  *  To  suppose  that  one  immaterial  being,  called 
Michael  the  archangel,  and  another  immaterial  being  called  the  devil, 
came,  the  first  from  heaven,  the  second  from  hell,  to  a  valley  in  the 
land  of  Moab,  to  dispute  about  the  body  of  Moses,  about  a  material 
body,  is  passing  strange.  Why  should  these  two  supposed  beings 
contend  for  such  a  body  ?  What  did  they  want  to  do  with  it  ?' 

Perhaps  we  are  wrong  in  seeing  any  reference  to  the  material  body 
of  Moses.  John  Bellamy  makes  a  novel  suggestion,  which  may 
receive  a  consideration,  as  it  is  based  on  the  examination  of  the 
original  Greek.  He  says  that  the  word  '  archangel '  is  a  compound 
word,  and  means  '  the  first  messenger.'  He  thinks  the  reference  is 
to  John  the  Baptist,  who  was  the  '  first  messenger '  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation. The  word  '  body '  refers  to  the  Messiah  as  foretold  in 
the  shadows,  types,  and  figures  of  the  books  of  Moses  ;  these  shadows, 
types,  and  figures  being  called  the  'body  of  Moses,'  the  whole 
assemblage  of  all  things  that  had  respect  to  the  manifestation  of  the 
Redeemer.  The  word  '  devil '  should  be  translated  Satan,  '  an  ad- 
versary,' and  really  represents  the  rulers  and  Pharisees  who  resisted 
John's  teaching  and  Christ's. 

'Thus  we  find  that  there  was  no  celestial  being  called  by  the 
term  "  archangel,"  sent  down  from  heaven  to  dispute  with  the  devil 
about  the  fleshly  body  of  Moses — no  devil  from  hell,  according  to 
the  vulgar  opinion  hitherto  understood,  to  dispute  with  an  archangel ; 
but  that  it  was  the  '  arch-messenger,'  i.e.,  the  first  messenger  ;  and 
that  the  word  diabolo^  rendered  *  the  devil,'  was  applied  as  a  collective 
noun  singular  to  the  assembled  body  of  the  Pharisees,  the  adversary 
of  the  mission  of  the  Baptist,  the  declared,  interested  enemy  of  the 
gracious  Redeemer.' 

'  Let  those  who  suppose  the  contention  was  about  the  material 
body  of  Moses  recollect  that  the  material  body  of  Moses  had  been 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  WRITINGS.  477 

mried  in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab  about  1,500  years,  when  it 
vas  said  that  Michael  and  the  devil  contended  about  it.  A  conten- 
ion  for  the  material  body  of  Moses  never  took  place  between  these 
wo  immaterial  beings.' 

Probably  more  sober-minded  Bible  students  will  regard  this  spiri- 
ualising  explanation  as  extravagant  and  unreasonable,  and  will  prefer 
he  simpler  suggestion  of  a  familiar  legend,  used  by  way  of  illustra- 
ion. 


SECTION  IV. 

DIFFICULTIES  RELATING  TO  ANCIENT  USAGES 
OF  LANGUAGE. 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTE. 

PECULIARITIES    OF    HEBREW    AND    GREEK   WRITINGS. 

THOSE  who  have  examined  with  care  the  '  Revised  Version  '  will  pro- 
bably find  left  on  their  minds  a  deep  impression  of  the  uncertainty 
)f  Bible  words  as  found  in  the  *  Authorised  Version.'  And  that  im- 
Dression  is  a  valuable  and  useful  one.  Many  still  retain  the  notion 
:hat  in  some  way  the  Divine  inspiration  extends  to  the  particular 
:ranslation  with  which  they  may  be  familiar,  and  then  they  are  ready 
:o  prove  particular  aspects  of  doctrine  by  the  words  they  find  in  their 
;ranslation.  The  fact  is  that  many  of  the  so-called  'difficulties'  of 
Holy  Scripture  belong  to  the  misuse  of  terms  put  to  represent  the 
original,  and  all  that  is  necessary  for  the  removal  of  many  '  difficulties  ' 
is  a  more  adequate  and  precise  rendering  of  the  thought  of  the 
writer.  And  in  this  the  '  Revised  Version  '  is  an  invaluable  helper. 

How  various  may  be  the  translations  of  any  ancient  author  into 
modern  language  may  be  seen  by  closely  examining  the  many 
English  translations  of  Homer's  *  Iliad.'  The  terms  used  by  Homer 
can  be  expressed  by  various  English  words,  but  it  is  the  work  of 
:ultured  scholarship  to  decide  which  words  most  exactly  present  to 
:he  English  reader  the  Homeric  thought,  and  there  may  be  cases 
in  which  no  English  word  can  be  found  that  is  a  precise  equivalent. 
The  simple  word  *  make '  is  used  in  our  '  Authorised  Version '  to 
represent  as  many  as  forty  distinct  Hebrew  words.  It  cannot  always 
be  precisely  suitable. 

Persons  often  have  singular  notions  about  translating  from  one 
language  into  another.  They  imagine  that  we  have  only  to  find 


478      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

answering  words,  to  observe  tenses,  and  to  make  the  English  sentence 
just  match  the  foreign  one.  True  translation  is  a  much  more  serious 
and  complex  matter.  It  is  seizing  precisely  the  thought  for  which  an 
author  finds  an  adequate  form  of  expression  in  his  language,  and  finding 
for  that  thought  an  expression  which  shall  be  as  adequate  and  precise 
for  our  language  as  his  form  of  expression  was  for  his  language.  It 
is  in  this  higher  idea  of  translation  that  the  '  Revised  Version '  con- 
siderably fails.  The  revisers  were  so  interested  in  recovering  the 
precise  text,  and  in  finding  exact  English  equivalents  for  terms  and 
words,  that  they  unfitted  themselves  for  the  partly  imaginative  work 
of  finding  English  idioms  to  match  those  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek ; 
and  perhaps  doing  this  involved  a  larger  liberty  of  treatment  than 
they  felt  justified  in  taking. 

This  entire  book  might  have  been  filled  with  instances  of  purely 
verbal  difficulties  found  in  Holy  Scripture,  but  in  the  effort  to  repre- 
sent all  classes  of  Bible  difficulties  space  has  been  left  for  only  a  few 
cases,  and  these  have  been  selected  so  as  to  be  as  representative  as 
possible. 

The  ordinary  difficulties  connected  with  translating  apply  to  the 
Bible,  but  there  are  some  special  difficulties  connected  with  it  which 
require  a  careful  attention.  Lightfoot  says  :  '  The  greatest  difficulties 
of  the  Scripture  lie  in  the  language ;  unlock  the  language  and  phrases 
and  the  difficulty  is  gone.'  It  is  well  to  remember  that  all  language, 
whether  oral  or  written,  is  but  an  imperfect  medium  for  conveying 
thoughts  to  the  mind,  or  of  communicating  feelings  to  the  heart. 
We  can  never  be  quite  sure  that  our  word  will  precisely  convey  what 
is  in  our  mind  to  another  mind.  But  the  difficulties  are  greatl) 
increased  when  we  are  dealing  with  an  ancient  and  a  dead  language, 
and  one  which  depended  for  its  pronunciations,  and  so  for  its  mean 
ings,  on  the  unwritten  law  of  the  customs  of  each  age.  It  needs  tc 
be  more  generally  known  that  the  Hebrew  of  our  modern  Bibles  is 
quite  a  later  form  of  Hebrew,  and  that  the  vowel  points,  which  no\\ 
decide  pronunciations,  were  provided  only  in  the  tenth  century  o: 
our  era.  The  early  Hebrew  was  virtually  without  vowels,  and  onl) 
established  custom  decided  the  form  in  which  a  word  should  b( 
pronounced ;  but  that  custom  can  now  only  be  uncertainly  guessed 
Many  perplexities  are  due  to  wrong  guessing  as  to  the  pronunciatioi 
of  terms ;  this  has  indeed  sometimes  actually  introduced  incorrec 
words,  which  create  the  difficulty  in  tracing  the  Bible  meanings.  A; 
an  illustration  of  this  point,  and  as  showing  the  variety  of  meaning: 
which  follow  on  the  readjustment  of  vowels  to  the  root  consonants 
the  original  letters  ^  *1  y  may  be  taken.  This  is  a  Bible  word,  bu 


HEBRE  W  AND  GREEK  WRITINGS.  479 

exactly  what  word  depends  on  the  way  in  which  we  put  vowels  to 
t.  We  may  represent  these  Hebrew  consonants  by  the  English 
letters  ARE  (the  first  letter,  y,  stands  for  a  kind  of  guttural  sound). 
Then  we  may  read  arob,  a  gad-fly  ;  arab^  an  Arabian ;  ereb^  the 
woof;  ereb,  evening;  or  oreb^  raven.  And  the  perplexity  of  this 
word  makes  quite  uncertain  the  way  in  which  Elijah  was  fed  at  the 
brook  Cherith. 

What  we  observe  in  our  own  language  we  may  presume  is  equally 
characteristic  of  other  languages.  The  meanings  of  words  vary  in 
the  course  of  years.  The  language  of  Chaucer  is  hardly  compre- 
hensible now,  and  many  of  Shakespeare's  words  are  obsolete,  and 
need  explanation.  'Prevent'  once  meant  'go  before.'  'Let 'once 
meant  '  hinder.'  But  we  may  fail  to  apply  this  to  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  though  it  must  be  the  fact,  that  a  writer  in  the  age  of 
Ezra  would  use  some  terms  with  meanings  quite  different  to  those 
which  were  familiar  to  Moses.  And  this  reminds  us  of  the  difficulty 
of  later  editing,  which  efficiently  explains  the  presence  of  later  words, 
or  words  with  later  meaning,  in  earlier  works. 

It  is  too  often  assumed  that  Hebrew  was  an  absolutely  pure 
language,  and  then,  if  words  belonging  properly  to  other  languages 
are  found  in  connection  with  it,  they  are  taken  as  proof  that  the 
work  itself  belongs  to  the  age  of  the  latest  term  used  in  it.  But  the 
Hebrew  language  could  not  have  been  thus  pure.  Abraham  must 
have  brought  Chaldaisms ;  associations  with  Canaan  and  Egypt,  and 
with  the  remnants  of  the  Canaanites  and  the  nations  round  Canaan, 
must  have  introduced  colloquialisms,  which  would  gradually  gain  place 
even  in  the  literature.  And  the  words  which  are  only  found  in  the 
later  literature  of  Chaldea  or  Egypt,  may  nevertheless  have  been 
in  the  speech  of  the  common  people  from  Abrahamic  times.  In 
dealing  with  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Sacred  Books,  arguments 
from  the  presence  in  them  of  later  forms  of  words,  or  of  words  with 
later  meanings,  must  be  very  uncertain  and  untrustworthy.  Not 
until  all  other  possible  suggestions  have  been  tried  can  we  accept 
them. 

But  there  are  certain  characteristic  features  of  Eastern  composition 
to  which  attention  should  be  directed,  as  the  most  prolific  source  of 
the  difficulties  which  we  feel,  who  have  Western  minds  and  methods. 
Dr.  Robert  Vaughan  writes  :  '  The  Oriental  intellect  is  not  logical. 
Its  faculty  is  to  a  high  degree  intuitive ;  it  reasons,  but  it  rarely  ever 
does  so  formally.  It  passes  to  its  conclusions  with  a  subtle  celerity, 
resembling  what  we  see  in  women,  much  more  than  by  those 
scientific  processes  which  are  familiar  to  our  Western  habits  of 


480      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

thought.  Hence  its  lessons  come  to  us  as  they  do,  in  fragments 
of  history  and  biography,  in  poetry  and  proverbs,  more  than  in 
regular  discourse  of  any  kind.  The  general  manner  of  the  sacred 
writers  is  positive,  dogmatic  ;  they  assert,  they  do  not  often  attempt 
to  prove.' 

Bishop  Marsh  says  :  '  All  languages  are  more  or  less  figurative ; 
but  they  are  most  so  in  their  earliest  state.  Before  language  is  pro- 
vided with  a  stock  of  words,  sufficient  in  their  literal  sense  to  express 
what  is  wanted,  men  are  under  the  necessity  of  extending  the  use  of 
words  beyond  the  literal  sense.  But  the  application  when  once 
begun  is  not  to  be  limited  by  the  bounds  of  necessity.  The 
imagination,  always  occupied  with  resemblances,  which  are  the 
foundation  of  figures,  disposes  men  to  seek  for  figurative  terms, 
where  they  might  express  themselves  in  literal  terms.  Figurative 
language  presents  a  kind  of  picture  to  the  mind,  and  thus  delights 
while  it  instructs  ;  whence  its  use,  though  more  necessary  when  a 
language  is  poor  and  uncultivated,  is  never  wholly  laid  aside,  especially 
in  the  writings  of  orators  and  poets.' 

A  Biblical  writer  points  out  that  the  '  language  of  the  Scriptures  is 
highly  figurative,  especially  in  the  Old  Testament.  For  this  two 
reasons  have  been  assigned ;  one  is,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  East, 
naturally  possessing  warm  and  vivid  imaginations,  and  living  in  a 
warm  and  fertile  climate,  surrounded  by  objects  equally  beautiful  and 
agreeable,  delight  in  a  figurative  style  of  expression  ;  and  as  these 
circumstances  easily  impel  their  power  of  conceiving  images,  they 
fancy  similitudes  which  are  often  far-fetched,  and  which,  to  the  chas- 
tised taste  of  European  readers,  do  not  always  appear  the  most  elegant 
The  other  reason  is,  that  many  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
axQ.  poetical ;  now  it  is  the  privilege  of  a  poet  to  illustrate  the  pro- 
ductions of  his  muse>  and  to  render  them  more  animated,  by  figures 
and  images  drawn  from  almost  every  subject  that  presents  itself  to 
his  imagination.  Hence  David,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  and  other  sacred 
poets,  abound  with  figures,  make  rapid  transitions  from  one  to 
another,  everywhere  scattering  flowers,  and  adorning  their  poems 
with  metaphors,  the  real  beauty  of  which,  however,  can  only  be 
appreciated  by  being  acquainted  with  the  country  in  which  the 
sacred  poets  lived,  its  situation  and  peculiarities,  and  also  with  the 
manners  of  the  inhabitants  and  the  idioms  of  their  language.'  No 
part  of  the  work  of  the  *  revisers '  is  more  valuable  than  their  distinctly 
marking  the  poetical  passages  in  all  the  sacred  books.  We  cannot 
now  make  the  mistake  of  using  figurative  and  suggestive  poetry  as  if 
it  were  logical  and  precise  prose.' 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  WRITINGS.  481 

Information  on  the  peculiarities  of  Eastern  style,  the  allegory,  the 
trope,  the  metonymy,  the  symbol,  the  metaphor,  the  proverb,  and 
the  parable,  is  at  the  easy  command  of  Bible  students.  To  two 
points  their  attention  may  be  directed.  There  is  in  the  Bible  writers 
a  strong  tendency  to  personification.  They  represent  inanimate 
things  as  if  alive,  speaking,  and  acting  ;  and  this  must  be  taken  into 
account  when  we  consider  such  difficulties  as  the  representation  of 
the  serpent  tempting  Eve,  and  the  ass  reproving  Balaam.  The  most 
familiar  instance  of  personifying  is  the  figure  of  Wisdom  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs.  The  other  peculiarity  is  known  as  parallelism.  Bible 
writers  seem  to  enjoy  repeating  a  thought,  and  varying  a  little  in  ihe 
form  of  expressing  it.  If  we  fail  to  notice  this  habit,  we  may  be  led 
to  put  a  new  meaning  into  second  sentences,  which  are,  in  fact,  no 
more  than  repetitions  of  the  thought  already  expressed.  *  The  grand 
and  sole  characteristic  of  Hebrew  poetry  is  what  Bishop  Lowth 
entitles  "parallelism,"  that  is,  a  certain  equality,  resemblance,  or 
relationship,  between  the  members  of  each  period ;  so  that  in  two 
lines,  or  members  of  the  same  period,  things  shall  answer  to  things, 
and  words  to  words,  as  if  fitted  to  each  other  by  a  kind  of  rule  or 
measure.  Such  is  the  general  strain  of  the  Hebrew  poetry — instances 
of  which  occur  in  almost  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  particularly 
in  the  ninety-sixth  Psalm.' 

Home  gives  a  rule,  for  explaining  the  figurative  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  may  be  recalled  because  it  is  so  often  forgotten  in  our 
attempts  to  elucidate  difficult  passages  :  '  Care  must  be  taken  that 
we  do  not  judge  of  the  application  of  characters  from  modern  usage  ; 
because  the  inhabitants  of  the  East  have  very  frequently  attached  a 
character  to  the  idea  expressed,  widely  different  from  that  which 
usually  presents  itself  to  our  views.  The  inhabitants  of  the  East, 
from  their  lively  imaginations,  very  often  make  use  of  far-fetched 
comparisons,  and  bring  together  things  which,  in  our  judgments,  are 
the  most  dissimilar.  Besides,  since  the  Hebrew  mode  of  living 
differed  greatly  from  ours,  and  many  things  were  in  use  and  com- 
mended by  the  Israelites  which  to  us  are  unknown,  we  ought  not 
to  be  surprised  if  there  be  a  very  wide  difference  subsisting  between 
the  metaphorical  expressions  of  the  Hebrews  and  those  which  are 
familiar  to  us,  and  if  they  should  sometimes  appear  harsh,  and  seem 
to  convey  a  different  meaning  from  that  which  we  are  accustomed  to 
receive.' 

The  exceeding  importance  of  the  increased,  and  more  precise, 
knowledge  of  Bible  manners  and  customs,  which  is  characteristic 
-of  our  times,  lies  in  the  help  we  thus  gain  towards  placing  ourselves 


482      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

at  the  standpoint  of  the  Bible  writers,  and  using  their  terms  in  the 
light  of  the  associations  and  surroundings  that  were  familiar  to  them. 
In  this  direction  there  is  abundant  scope  for  more  and  more  useful 
work. 

Little  need  be  added  in  relation  to  difficulties  arising  from  the 
translation  of  the  Greek  words  of  the  New  Testament  into  satis- 
factory English  equivalents.  Greek  is  a  fully  elaborated  language, 
and  thought  can  be  expressed  in  it  with  such  exactness  and  precision, 
that  it  can  be  fully  caught  and  fittingly  expressed  in  another  language, 
especially  in  one  like  the  English,  which  is  equally  developed, 
and  equally  competent  to  express  all  shades  of  meaning.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  remark,  that  the  Greek  of  the  Apostles  must  have  been 
materially  influenced  by  the  Syro-Chaldaic  which  was  the  language 
of  their  ordinary  life  ;  and  as  Christianity  started  new  ideas,  we 
should  expect  to  find  new  meanings  attaching  to  the  classical  Greek 
terms,  so  that  a  classical  dictionary  would  be  of  but  little  use  in 
translating  the  New  Testament. 

Writing  of  the  value  of  the  study  of  synonyms,  Trench  makes  the 
following  statement  concerning  the  complexity  of  the  Greek  language : 
'  Instructive  as  in  any  language  it  must  be,  it  must  be  eminently  sc 
in  the  Greek — a  language  spoken  by  a  people  of  the  finest  and 
subtlest  intellect ;  who  saw  distinctions  where  others  saw  none 
who  divided  out  to  different  words  what  others  often  were  content  tc 
huddle  confusedly  under  a  common  term ;  who  were  themselves 
singularly  alive  to  its  value,  diligently  cultivating  the  art  of  synonymous 
distinction,  and  sometimes  even  to  an  extravagant  excess ;  who  have 
bequeathed  a  multitude  of  fine  and  delicate  observations  on  tht 
right  distinguishing  of  their  own  words  to  the  after-world.  Anc 
while  thus,  with  reference  to  all  Greek,  the  investigation  of  the  like 
nesses  and  differences  of  words  appears  especially  invited  by  the 
characteristic  excellences  of  the  language,  in  respect  to  the  Greek  o 
the  New  Testament,  plainly  there  are  reasons  additional  inviting  us  tc 
this  study.  If  by  such  investigations  as  these  we  become  aware  o 
delicate  variations  in  an  author's  meaning,  which  otherwise  we  migh 
have  missed,  where  is  it  so  desirable  that  we  should  miss  nothing 
that  we  should  lose  no  finer  intention  of  the  writer,  as  in  those  word: 
which  are  the  vehicles  of  the  very  mind  of  God  Himself?' 


THE  HART  AND  THE   WATER-BROOKS.         483 

The  Hart  and  the  Water-brooks. 

PSALM  xlii.  i  :  '  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water-brooks.' 

Question. — Does  the  historical  association  of  this  psalm  help  us  to 
understand  what  is  meant  by  the  '  water-brooks  '  ? 

Answer. — Though  the  authorship  of  the  psalm  is  disputed,  and 
its  likeness  to  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  suggests  a  later  origin,  the  Davidic  origin 
may  be  said  to  be  generally  maintained,  and  it  certainly  is  the  least 
difficult  hypothesis.  Granting  it  to  be  David's,  the  historical  associa- 
tion is  at  once  defined.  It  can  only  be  a  psalm  written  in  connec- 
tion with  David's  banishment  beyond  Jordan,  at  the  time  of  Absalom's 
rebellion. 

Delitzsch  says  :  '  The  composer  finds  himself,  against  his  will,  at  a 
great  distance  from  the  sanctuary  on  Zion,  the  resting-place  of  the 
Divine  presence  and  manifestation,  surrounded  by  an  ungodly  people, 
who  mock  at  him  as  one  forsaken  of  God;  and  he  comforts  his 
sorrowful  soul,  looking  longingly  back  upon  that  which  it  has  lost, 
with  the  prospect  of  God's  help  which  will  soon  appear.  All  the 
complaints  and  hopes  that  he  expresses  sound  very  much  like  those 
of  David  during  the  time  of  Absalom.  David's  yearning  after  the 
house  of  God  in  Ps.  xxiii.,  xxvi.,  lv.,  Ixiii.,  finds  its  echo  here  :  the 
conduct  and  outlines  of  the  enemies  are  also  just  the  same;  even 
the  sojourn  in  the  country  east  of  Jordan  agrees  with  David's  settle- 
ment at  that  time  at  Mahanaim  in  the  mountains  of  Gilead.' 

Dean  Perowne  thinks  the  Davidic  authorship  doubtful.  Jennings 
and  Lowe  argue  strongly  for  it.  Canon  Cook  writes  doubtfully,  but 
with  bias  towards  David. 

Dean  Stanley  says  :  '  Its  date  and  authorship  are  uncertain  ;  but 
the  place  is,  beyond  doubt,  the  Trans-Jordanic  hills,  which  always 
behold,  as  they  are  always  beheld  from,  Western  Palestine.  As 
before  the  eyes  of  the  exile  the  "gazelle"  of  the  forests  of  Gilead 
panted  after  the  fresh  streams  of  water  which  there  descend  to  the 
Jordan,  so  his  soul  panted  after  God,  from  whose  outward  presence 
he  was  shut  out.  The  river,  with  its  winding  rapids,  "  deep  calling 
unto  deep,"  lay  between  him  and  his  home.  All  that  he  could  now 
do  was  to  remember  the  past,  as  he  stood  "  in  the  land  of  Jordan," 
as  he  saw  the  peaks  of  "  Hermon,"  as  he  found  himself  on  the 
eastern  heights  of  Mizar,  which  reminded  him  of  his  banishment  and 
solitude.' 

The  word  *  panteth '  has  been  rendered  '  brayeth '  in  the  Syriac 
Version,  as  if  a  peculiar  cry  of  the  thirsty  animal  were  intended, 

31—2 


484      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

which  came  to  the  psalmist's  ears.     '  Not  merely  a  quiet  languishing, 
but  a  strong  audible  thirsting  or  panting  for  water.' 

The  word  translated  'water- brooks'  is  better  read  'water-courses,' 
and  the  word  precisely  means  the  deep  channels,  or  ravines,  which 
are  common  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan,  cutting  down  through  the 
highlands,  and  forming  beds  of  streams  in  the  rainy  seasons.  In 
these  ravines  the  water  would  lie  long  in  pools,  and  so  they  could  be 
rightly  spoken  of  as  water-courses  or  water-brooks. 

The  land  east  of  Jordan  may  be  spoken  of  as  a  land  intersected 
by  ravines,  deep  wadys  dry  in  summer,  and  filled  suddenly,  after 
storms,  by  torrents  from  neighbouring  heights. 

Wilton  tells  us  that  the  gazelle  is  constantly  found  resorting  to  the 
rocky  ravines  (on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan)  in  quest,  doubtless,  of 
the  pools  of  water  left  here  and  there  by  the  winter  torrents. 

James  Neil,  M.A.,  makes  a  very  singular  suggestion  in  relation  to 
these  'water-courses,'  which  he  proposes  to  read  'aqueducts.'  The 
Hebrew  term  is  'apheek';  and  in  the  original  the  clause  now  before 
us  reads  'al  apheekaiy-mayim,  which  Neil  translates  '  over  the  aque- 
ducts of  water.' 

'Aqueducts  are,  and  always  must  have  been,  very  common  in 
Palestine,  not  only  for  bringing  water  to  waterless  towns,  but  also  for 
the  purpose  of  irrigating  gardens.  Ruined  remains  of  these  structures 
are  to  be  found  everywhere  throughout  the  country. 

'  It  seems  certain  that  there  must  have  been  a  familiar  technical 
term  for  them  in  Hebrew,  and  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  who 
draw  their  imagery  so  largely  from  the  features  of  garden  culture, 
must  have  referred  to  these  precious  water-channels.  One  word  in 
Hebrew,  the  sense  of  which  seems  to  have  been  entirely  overlooked, 
must  plainly  have  borne  this  meaning,  the  word  apheek,  which  occurs 
eighteen  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  also  in  some  names  of 
places,  as  Aphaik,  near  Beth-horon.  The  translators  of  our  Authorised 
Version  have  been  able  to  make  but  little  of  it,  rendering  it  by  seven 
different  English  words,  most  frequently,  by  "  river,"  which  it  cannot 
possibly  mean.  The  word  comes  from  aphak^  "  restrained "  or 
"  forced,"  and  this  is  the  main  idea  of  an  aqueduct,  which  is  a 
•structure  formed  for  the  purpose  of  constraining  or  forcing  a  stream 
of  water  to  flow  in  a  desired  direction.  So  strongly  were  the 
Palestine  aqueducts  made,  that  their  ruins,  probably  in  some  places 
two  thousand  years  old,  remain  to  this  day.  In  rare  instances 
(there  is  one  at  Jerusalem),  they  are  fashioned  of  bored  stones. 
Sometimes  for  a  short  distance  they  are  cut  as  open  grooves  in  the 
hard  limestone  of  the  hills,  or  as  small  channels  bored  through  their 


THE  HART  AND  THE   WATER-BROOKS.         485 

sides.  Where  the  levels  require  it,  they  are  built  up  stone  structures 
above  ground.  But  the  aqueducts  of  Palestine  mostly  consist  of 
earthenware  pipes,  laid  on  or  under  ground  in  a  casing  of  strong 
cement.  Apheek,  I  contend,  in  its  technical  sense,  stands  for  an 
ordinary  covered  Palestine  aqueduct,  but  it  is  also  poetically  applied 
to  the  natural  underground  channels,  which  supply  springs,  and  to 
the  gorge-like,  rocky  beds  of  some  mountain  streams,  which  appear 
like  huge  open  aqueducts. 

'What  a  depth  of  new  meaning  and  beauty  now  clothes  the 
pathetic  and  familiar,  but  hitherto  little  understood,  words  of 
David : 

"  As  the  hind  pants  over  the  aqueducts  of  water, 
So  pants  my  soul  after  Thee,  O  God  !" 

*  In  our  Version  the  words  read  "panteth  after  the  water-brooks. 'r 
But  the  preposition  'al  here,  in  almost  every  case,  means  "  upon,"  or 
"over,"  and  surely  no  deer  would  "pant,"  or  "bray,"  for  water  if 
it  were  standing  over  an  open  brook.  The  repetition  involved  in  the 
expression  "  aqueducts  of  water,"  which  may  seem  strange  and  un- 
natural to  the  English  reader,  is  very  characteristic  in  the  case  of 
Hebrew  speech,  where  I  have  traced  no  less  than  some  forty  varieties 
of  this  essentially  Oriental  figure  repetition.  This  forty-second 
Psalm  appears  to  have  been  written  in  Gilead,  when  David  had  to 
fly  there  from  Jerusalem,  driven  out  by  Absalom's  rebellion.  The 
thought  that  he  is  expressing  is  that  of  his  painful  inability  to  reach 
those  spiritual  privileges  which  he  had  formerly  enjoyed  in  Zion. 
The  whole  force  of  his  striking  comparison  is  lost  in  our  Bible.  To 
use  my  own  words  in  another  place,  David  is  "lamenting  his  banish- 
ment from  Zion  and  all  its  spiritual  privileges  in  the  manifested 
presence  of  Jehovah."  He  thirsts  after  God,  and  longs  to  taste 
again  the  joy  of  His  house,  like  the  parched  and  weary  hind  who 
comes  to  a  covered  channel  conveying  the  living  waters  of  some  far- 
off  spring  across  the  intervening  desert.  She  scents  the  precious 
current  in  its  bed  of  adamantine  cement,  or  hears  its  rippling  flow 
close  beneath  her  feet,  or,  perchance,  sees  it  deep  down  through  one 
of  the  narrow  air-holes ;  and  as  she  agonizes  for  the  inaccessible 
draught,  she  "  pants  over  the  aqueducts  of  water." ' 


HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 


Satan  among  the  Sons  of  God. 

JOB  i.  6  :  '  Now,  there  was  a  day  when  the  sons  of  God  came  to  present  them- 
selves before  the  Lord,  and  Satan  came  also  among  them.' 

Difficulty. — This  association  of  Satan  with  God's  servants  is 
unlike  any  other  references  to  Satan  found  in  the  Sacred  Word. 

Explanation. — Probably  the  word  should  be  translated,  as  in 
the  margin,  '  an  adversary.'  Satan,  as  the  name  of  one  recognised 
individual,  is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  '  An  adversary '  is 
everywhere  the  proper  translation  of  the  term. 

But  if  we  rightly  regard  the  Book  of  Job,  we  shall  see  it  to  be  a 
work  of  imagination,  and  neither  historical  nor  descriptive.  It 
belongs  to  the  age  of  Solomon,  and  embodies  the  religious  senti- 
ments and  struggles  of  that  age.  We  may  reasonably  think  it  was 
founded  on  an  old  legend  of  the  '  Patriarch  of  Uz,'  somewhat  as 
Tennyson's  'Idylls  of  the  King'  are  founded  on  the  legend  of 
*  King  Arthur.'  We  need  not  therefore  see  in  this  verse  description 
of  historical  fact,  but  only  the  fanciful  form  in  which  the  writer  was 
pleased  to  introduce  the  machinery  of  his  book.  If  the  expressions 
be  taken  literally,  so  many  impossible  questions  can  be  asked  in 
relation  to  them.  And  it  is  plain  that  the  '  adversary '  is  no  more 
than  the  servant  of  God,  who  carries  out  His  gracious  purpose  of 
testing  His  people  by  calamities  and  afflictions ;  and  that  is  certainly 
a  totally  different  being  to  the  '  devil '  of  mediaeval  plays,  or  of 
modern  poetry  and  theology.  As  God  may  be  thought  to  employ  a 
minister,  or  angel,  of  death,  so  He  may  be  thought  of  as  employing 
an  angel  of  calamity  or  an  angel  of  disease.  But  maliciousness  must 
never  be  associated  with  God's  agents,  who  do  His  testing  work : 
and  this  *  maliciousness '  is  essential  to  our  idea  of  the  '  devil.' 

Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  says:  'The  narrative  describes  how  the 
disinterestedness  of  Job's  piety  was  called  in  question  in  the  council 
of  heaven  by  the  Satan,  or  adversary,  that  one  of  God's  ministers 
whose  office  is  to  try  the  sincerity  of  men,  and  oppose  them  in  their 
pretensions  to  a  right  standing  before  God.  This  angel  insinuated 
that  Job's  religion  was  insincere,  and  only  the  natural  return  for  the 
unprecedented  blessings  showered  on  him  by  God ;  if  these  blessings 
were  withdrawn  he  would  disown  God  to  His  face.  .  .  .  Three 
opinions  have  been  held  concerning  the  composition  of  this  book. 
i.  Some  consider  it  to  be  strictly  historical,  both  in  the  narrative 
and  poetical  portions.  2.  Others  have  maintained  a  view  directly 
opposed,  regarding  the  work  as  wholly  unhistorical,  and  in  all  its 


GOD'S  NAME— THE  « I  AM:  487 

Darts  a  creation  of  the  poet's  mind,  and  written  with  a  didactic  pur- 
pose. 3.  And  a  third  class  assumes  a  middle  position  between 
these  two  extremes,  considering  that,  though  mainly  a  creation  of 
the  author's  own  mind,  the  poem  reposes  on  a  historical  tradition, 
which  the  writer  adopted  as  suitable  for  his  moral  purpose,  and  the 
outline  of  which  he  has  preserved.'  Davidson  says :  *  The  Satan 
represented  here  is  neither  a  fallen  nor  evil  spirit  Yet  undoubtedly 
a  step  towards  this  is  taken.' 

God's  Name— the  <I  Am.' 

EXODUS  iii.  14 :  '  And  God  said  unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am  :  and  he  said, 
Thus  shall  thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto  you.' 

Difficulty. — This  is  only  an  assertion  of  existence;  it  cannot  pro- 
perly be  called  a  name. 

Explanation. — A  little  thought  will  convince  us  that  no  name 
can  possibly  be  found  which  can  adequately  represent  an  absolute 
and  infinite  Being,  such  as  we  should  conceive  God  to  be.  A  name 
of  necessity  limits  the  being  to  whom  it  is  applied,  confining  our 
attention  to  some  particular  aspect  of  him,  or  relation  in  which  he 
stands.  And  we  are  always  exposed  to  the  danger  of  making  that 
one  view  of  him  stand  for  the  whole  of  him.  Idolatrous  religions  can 
find  names  for  their  gods,  because  no  one  of  them  is  absolute  ;  each 
does  but  represent  a  quality  or  a  relationship.  In  response  to  Moses 
God  virtually  refuses  to  give  a  name.  He  purposely  asserts  that 
Moses  will  have  to  be  satisfied  with  the  declaration  of  His  absolute, 
uncaused,  and  unrelated  existence.  'I  am.'  'There  is  no  more 
than  that  can  be  said,  if  you  would  know  My  abstract  nature.'  God 
can  be  in  measure  known  through  the  relations  into  which  He 
comes  with  His  creation,  and  with  His  creatures,  but  God  can  not 
be  known  in  essence.  None  can  find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfection. 

But  the  word  which  asserts  His  existence  is  full  of  interest  to  us ; 
and  it  illustrates  some  of  our  most  serious  difficulties  in  dealing  with 
the  early  Hebrew  Scriptures.  They  were  written  without  vowel- 
points,  and  there  were  unwritten  laws  of  pronunciation,  which  have 
been  entirely  lost,  so  that  absolute  security  as  to  the  form  of  many 
old  Hebrew  terms  cannot  be  assured.  The  meanings  of  words  can  at 
once  be  altered  by  changing  the  vowels  applied  to  the  root-consonants. 

The  actual  letters  of  the  word  spoken  by  God  to  Moses  were 
JTP1K,  which  read  AHVH.  In  the  present  Hebrew  Bibles,  the 
vowel  e  is  twice  applied  to  the  consonants,  making  the  word  read 
(pronouncing  the  first  letter  as  a  kind  of  }]  Jeh-veh.  Ewald  puts  a 


488      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

first  vowel  a  and  a  second  e,  making  the  word  sound  Jah-veh.  The 
Israelites,  in  order  that  they  might  never,  even  by  inadvertence, 
pronounce  the  sacred  name  (as  they  called  it),  took  the  vowels  ol 
the  commoner  word  for  God,  Eloah,  <?,  o,  a,  and  applied  them  to 
the  consonants,  thus  making  the  familiar  void  Jehovah. 

Bishop  Harold  Browne  regards  the  word  as  a  name,  '  as  clearly  a 
proper  name  as  Jupiter  or  Vishnu.'  On  the  question  whether  it 
was  first  given  on  this  occasion  to  Moses,  he  takes  a  decided  view, 
believing  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  of  its  being  a  recognised 
name  long  before.  His  note  is  as  follows  :  '  It  is  now  generally 
admitted  by  competent  Semitic  scholars,  that  the  word  signifies  "  the 
existent,"  or  something  nearly  akin  to  this.  The  true  pronunciation, 
of  course,  is  lost ;  but  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that,  as  the 
name  of  God  declared  to  Mcses  in  Ex.  iii.  14,  "I  am,"  is  the  first 
person  present  of  the  substantive  verb,  so  the  name  Jehovah  is  part 
of  the  same,  but  probably  the  third  person  present,  or,  as  others 
think,  the  same  tense  of  a  causative  (Hiphil)  form.  But  if  so,  there 
can  be  no  question  that  the  name  must  have  been  pre-Mosaic.  In 
Hebrew  the  verb  is  always  hayah,  though  in  Syriac  and  Chaldee  it 
is  always  havah.  A  name,  therefore,  derived  from  havah^  and  existing 
in  ancient  Hebrew,  must  have  come  down  from  a  time  prior  to  the 
separation  of  the  Hebrews  from  their  kindred  Aramaeans,  i.e.,  not 
later  than  the  time  of  Abraham.  In  fact  the  name  IHVH  could 
not  have  been  found  among  the  Hebrews  at  any  period  of  history 
from  the  descent  into  Egypt  to  the  captivity  of  Babylon  ;  and  as  it 
undoubtedly  exists  in  Hebrew  writings  prior  to  the  Captivity,  so  it 
must  have  originated  before  the  time  of  Joseph.' 

Dean  Stanley  says  of  this  word :  '  It  was  the  rending  asunder  of 
the  veil  which  overhung  the  temple  of  the  Egyptian  Sais.  "  I  am 
that  which  has  been,  and  which  is,  and  which  is  to  be ;  and  My  veil 
no  mortal  hath  yet  drawn  aside."  It  was  the  declaration  of  the 
simplicity,  the  unity,  the  self-existence  of  the  Divine  nature,  the  exact 
opposite  to  all  the  multiplied  forms  of  idolatry,  human,  animal,  and 
celestial,  that  prevailed,  as  far  as  we  know,  everywhere  else.' 

Canon  Rawlinson  supports  the  view  that  we  have  an  assertion  of 
a  fact  rather  than  a  name.  '  It  is  generally  assumed  that  this  is 
given  to  Moses  as  the  full  name  of  God.  But  perhaps  it  is  rather 
a  deep  and  mysterious  statement  of  His  nature.  "  I  am  that  which 
I  am."  My  nature,  i.e.,  cannot  be  declared  in  words,  cannot  be 
conceived  by  human  thought.  I  exist  in  such  sort  that  My  whole 
inscrutable  nature  is  implied  in  My  existence.  I  exist,  as  nothing 
else  does — necessarily,  eternally,  really.  If  I  am  to  give  Myself  a 


1  UNTO  THEE  SHALL  BE  HIS  DESIRE:          489 

name  expressive  of  My  nature,  so  far  as  language  can  be,  let  Me  be 
called,  "I  am."' 

It  implies  (i)  an  existence   different  from  all  other   existence  ; 

(2)  an  existence  out  of  time,  with  which  time  has  nothing  to  do  ; 

(3)  an  existence  that  is  real,  all  other  being  shadowy;    (4)  an  in- 
dependent  and  unconditioned   existence,  from  which  all  other   is 
derived,  and  on  which  it  is  dependent. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  word  could  be  made  into  a  future, 
and  so  made  to  express,  '  He  who  is  to  be,'  and  give  an  anticipatory 
hint  of  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
But  in  this  case  the  'wish  is  probably  father  to  the  thought.' 


'  Unto  thee  shall  be  his  Desire/ 

GENESIS  iv.  7  :  'And  unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  him.' 

Difficulty. — As  Abel  is  not  mentioned  in  this  verse,  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  bring  him  into  it. 

Explanation. — Certainly  the  grammatical  reading  of  the  verse, 
which  is  immediately  suggested  to  the  reader,  is  this  :  *  Sin  lieth  at 
the  door,  and  its  desire  is  to  master  thee ;  but  if  thou  doest  well, 
thou  shalt  overcome  and  rule  over  it.'  No  question  of  losing  his 
position  and  rights,  as  the  eldest  son,  is  brought  into  the  conversation. 
It  is  a  Divine  warning  of  the  danger  of  going  further  into  sin,  if  he 
cherished  his  present  bad  state  of  mind  and  feeling. 

Some  think  by  '  sin  '  a  '  sin-offering  '  is  meant ;  but  such  a  later  idea 
cannot  reasonably  be  associated  with  the  text. 

The  difficulty  really  lies  in  the  pronouns,  which  are  masculine, 
while  '  sin  '  is  a  feminine  form.  This  leads  many  writers  to  feel  that 
Abel  must  be  brought  in  somewhere. 

'  The  LXX.  Version  clearly  refers  it  to  Abel,  which  interpretation  is 
adopted  by  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  and  most  of  the 
fathers,  by  Grotius,  Vossius,  Heidegger,  by  our  own  translators,  and 
by  a  majority  of  English  commentators.  The  sense  will  then  be, 
that  Cain,  whose  jealousy  had  been  excited  by  God's  acceptance  of 
Abel,  need  not,  if  he  behaved  well,  fear  that  Abel  should  be  preferred 
before  him  :  his  pre-eminence  of  birth  should  be  preserved  to  him. 

The  expression  '  unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire '  is  an  idiomatic  ex- 
pression, specially  noting  the  longing  of  one  who  looks  up  to  another 
as  the  object  of  reverence  ;  and  so  it  notes  dependence,  as  of  a 
younger  brother  on  an  elder,  or  of  a  wife  on  her  husband  :  see  Gen. 
iii.  1 6. 


490      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  German  writers,  for  the  most  part,  prefer  the  other  translation 
and  explanation.  '  Sin  lieth  crouching  like  a  wild  beast  at  the  door 
of  the  soul ;  its  desire  is  toward  thee,  yet  thou  art  not  given  over  into 
its  power ;  but  if  thou  wilt,  thou  shalt  be  able  to  keep  it  in  sub- 
jection.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  points  out  the  difficulty  of  the  pronouns,  and 
proposes  to  translate  :  '  If  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  croucheth  at  the 
door — that  is,  lies  dangerously  near  thee,  and  puts  thee  in  peril. 
Beware,  therefore,  and  stand  on  thy  guard  •  and  then  his  desire  shall 
be  unto  thee,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  him.  At  present  thou  art 
vexed  and  envious  because  thy  younger  brother  is  rich  and  prosperous, 
while  thy  tillage  yields  thee  but  scanty  returns.  Do  well,  and  the 
Divine  blessing  will  rest  on  thee,  and  thou  wilt  recover  thy  rights  of 
primogeniture,  and  thy  brother  will  look  up  to  thee  in  loving 
obedience.' 

He  thinks  we  have  in  this  verse  proof  of  a  struggle  in  Cain's 
conscience.  Abel  was  evidently  outstripping  him  in  wealth  .  .  . 
this  led  to  envy  and  malice  on  the  part  of  Cain,  increased, 
doubtless,  by  the  favour  of  God  shown  to  Abel's  sacrifice  ;  but 
he  seems  to  have  resisted  these  evil  feelings.  Jehovah  would  not 
have  remonstrated  thus  kindly  with  him  had  he  been  altogether 
reprobate.  Possibly,  too,  for  a  time  he  prevailed  over  his  evil 
tempers.  It  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  that  the  murder  followed  im- 
mediately on  the  sacrifice. 

This  is  very  interesting,  but  purely  imaginative.  There  is  not  the 
faintest  hint  of  any  such  explanation  in  the  record. 

The  Gleaning  better  than  the  Vintage. 

JUDGES  viii.  2,  3  :  '  And  he  said  unto  them,  What  have  I  now  done  in  compari- 
son of  you  ?  Is  not  the  gleaning  of  the  grapes  of  Ephraim  better  than  the  vintage 
of  Abiezer  ?  God  hath  delivered  into  your  hand  the  princes  of  Midian,  Oreb  and 
Zeeb  ;  and  what  was  I  able  to  do  in  comparison  of  you  ?  Then  their  anger  was 
abated  toward  him,  when  he  had  said  that.' 

Difficulty. — The  basis  of  a  comparison  between  the  ' gleaning'  and 
the  '  vintage '  is  not  easy  for  us  to  recognise. 

Explanation. — 'Gleaning 'is  a  term  which  we  confine  to  the 
cornfields ;  but  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  also  be  applied 
to  the  fruit-crops.  Even  when  apple-trees  or  vines  are  thought  to  be 
picked  single  apples  and  small  bunches  of  grapes  will  be  found 
left ;  and  the  gleaning  which  was  the  right  of  the  poor  in  Canaan 
applied  to  the  fruit-trees  as  well  as  the  cornfields.  The  law  of  Moses, 
and  the  usage  founded  on  it,  gave  the  poor  people  of  Israel  the 


THE  GLEANING  BETTER  THAN  THE  VINTAGE.  491 

right  of  gleaning  in  the  harvest-fields.  As  the  owners  of  land  were 
not  required  to  pay  what  we  call  poor's  rates,  or  taxes  for  the  support 
of  the  poor,  they  allowed  very  freely  the  privilege  of  gleaning.  It 
was,  however,  only  too  likely  that  the  poor  would  take  undue 
advantage  of  this  right,  and  subject  the  harvesting  operations  to 
serious  inconvenience,  and  therefore  the  proprietor  retained  the 
power  of  nominating  the  persons  who  were  to  glean  .after  his  reapers. 
The  poor  had  to  apply  to  the  proprietors  for  permission  to  glean  in 
their  fields. 

But  the  passage  Deut.  xxiv.  19-21  extends  the  right  of  gleaning  to 
the  olive-tree  and  the  vine.  '  When  thou  beatest  thine  olive-tree,  thou 
shalt  not  go  over  the  boughs  again  :  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  the 
fatherless,  and  for  the  widow.  When  thou  gatherest  the  grapes  of 
thy  vineyard,  thou  shalt  not  glean  it  afterwards ;  it  shall  be  for  the 
stranger,  for  the  fatherless,  and  for  the  widow.' 

Gideon,  in  the  passage  now  before  us,  speaks  in  the  figurative 
style  of  the  East :  '  By  the  overthrow  of  the  national  enemy,  the 
Ephraimites  were  benefited  as  largely  as  any  of  the  other  neighbour- 
ing tribes.  But,  piqued  at  not  having  been  sharers  in  the  glory  of 
the  victory,  their  leading  men  could  not  repress  their  wounded  pride  ; 
and  the  occasion  only  served  to  bring  out  an  old  and  deep-seated 
feeling  of  jealous  rivalry  that  subsisted  between  the  tribes.'  We  must 
remember  that  Gideon  had  to  deal  with  an  unreasonable  state  of 
temper,  and  his  concession  was  put  in  the  strongest  form  possible,  in 
the  hope  of  soothing  irritated  feeling.  We  have  here  an  illustration  of 
the  '  soft  answer  that  turneth  away  wrath.'  '  A  civil  war  with  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim  would  soon  have  turned  Israel's  victory  into  mourn- 
ing. Gideon  therefore  soothes  their  wounded  pride  by  confessing 
that  Ephraim  had  done  more — in  securing  the  heads  of  the  princes, 
Oreb  and  Zeeb — though  they  had  joined  him  so  late  in  the  day,  than 
he  had  been  able  to  effect  in  the  whole  campaign.'  In  Eastern  war- 
fare a  victory  is  not  thought  to  be  complete  unless  the  death  of  the 
leader  is  secured. 

The  point  of  Gideon's  figure  may  be  thus  expressed:  the  two 
princely  heads,  which  were  the  '  gleaning '  of  Ephraim,  were  more 
important,  to  the  satisfactory  issue  of  the  war,  than  the  *  vintage '  of 
obscure  hundreds  of  mere  soldiers.  The  Chaldee  renders  the  verse  : 
*  Are  not  the  weak  of  the  house  of  Ephraim  better  than  the  strong 
of  the  house  of  Abiezer  ?'  Bishop  Hall  says  :  '  Gideon's  good  words 
were  as  victorious  as  his  sword.' 


492      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


The   Command  to  *  Kiss  the  Son/ 

PSALM  ii.  12  (Rev.  Ver.}  \  '  Kiss  the  son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  in  the 
way,  for  his  wrath  will  soon  be  kindled.' 

Question. — Are  there  indications  of  a  custom  of  kissing  as  a  token 
of  submission  ? 

Answer. — The  warm  and  emotional  Easterns  are  in  every  way 
more  demonstrative  than  we  colder  people  of  the  West ;  but  kissing 
customs  are  retained  even  to  our  day.  Those  whom  our  Queen 
favours  are  graciously  permitted  to  kiss  her  hand ;  and  doing  so  is 
still  regarded  as  a  testimony  of  loyalty  and  obedience. 

We  need  not  consider  those  Scriptural  instances  in  which  kissing 
is  the  sign  and  expression  of  personal  affection,  because  that  is  the 
common  and  ordinary  relation  of  the  custom  all  the  world  over,  and 
all  the  ages  through.  Some  of  the  cases  of  kissing,  in  what  may  be 
called  'official  relations,'  will  help  to  explain  the  allusion  in  the 
above  text. 

In  Gen.  xli.  40  Pharaoh  says  to  Joseph :  '  Thou  shalt  be  over  my 
house,  and  according  unto  thy  word  shall  all  my  people  be  ruled.' 
The  Hebrew  of  the  last  clause  reads,  'shall  all  my  people  kiss,' 
implying  that  even  thus  early  kissing  was  a  recognised  sign  of 
homage. 

When  Samuel  anointed  Saul,  as  chosen  by  God  to  be  the  first 
King  of  Israel,  it  is  said,  'Then  Samuel  took  a  vial  of  oil,  and 
poured  it  on  his  head,  and  kissed  him,'  by  this  act  expressing  his 
own  allegiance  and  homage  (i  Sam.  x.  i). 

Absalom  was  restored  to  the  king's  favour  on  the  intercession  of 
Joab ;  and  on  his  coming  into  the  royal  presence,  and  '  bowing 
himself  on  his  face  to  the  ground,'  as  a  sign  of  submission  and 
obedience,  the  king  kissed  him,  as  a  public  sign  of  reconciliation 
(2  Sam.  xiv.  33). 

God  says  to  Elijah,  in  i  Kings  xix.  18,  'Yet  I  have  left  me  seven 
thousand  in  Israel,  all  the  knees  which  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal, 
and  every  mouth  which  hath  not  kissed  him,'  from  which  it  seems 
that  kissing  the  idol  was  one  of  the  signs  of  devotion  to  its  service. 
'  Idolaters  sometimes  kissed  the  hand  to  the  object  of  their  worship 
(Job  xxxi.  26,  27) ;  at  other  times  they  kissed  the  actual  image 
(Hosea  xiii.  2).  Cicero  speaks  of  having  seen  at  Agrigentum  an 
image  of  Hercules  the  mouth  and  beard  of  which  were  worn  away 
by  the  kisses  of  worshippers.'  Sometimes  the  image  was  kissed, 
sometimes  the  altar,  and  sometimes  the  threshold  of  the  temple. 


ZIPPORAH'S  EXCLAMATION.  493 

The  traitorous  kiss  of  Judas  Iscariot  implies  that  the  kiss  was,  in 
the  time  of  our  Lord,  the  sign  of  submission,  obedience,  and  service. 

As  a  token  of  submission  the  custom  prevails  in  the  East  to  this 
day.  Among  the  Persians  inferiors  kiss  the  hands  and  feet  of 
superiors.  Among  the  Arabs  the  women  and  children  kiss  the 
beards  of  their  husbands  and  fathers.  In  Egypt  the  slaves  and 
servants  of  a  grandee  kiss  their  lord's  sleeve  or  the  skirt  of  his 
clothing.  To  testify  abject  submission  the  feet  are  often  kissed. 
To  kiss  the  footprint  of  a  prince  evinced  the  deepest  reverence  and 
subjection. 

Possibly  the  expression  '  kiss  the  son '  refers  to  a  custom  observed 
at  the  coronation  of  princes.  After  the  crown  had  been  placed  on 
the  head,  and  the  king  had  taken  the  usual  oaths  or  covenants,  the 
nobles  pledged  their  allegiance  with  the  '  kiss  of  majesty.' 

Zipporah's  Exclamation. 

EXODUS  iv.  24-26  (Rev.  Ver.) :  '  And  it  came  to  pass,  on  the  way  at  the  lodging- 
place,  that  the  Lord  met  him,  and  sought  to  kill  him.  Then  Zipporah  took  a  flint, 
and  cut  off  the  foreskin  of  her  son,  and  cast  it  at  his  feet  ;  and  she  said,  Surely  a 
bridegroom  of  blood  art  thou  to  me.  So  he  let  him  alone.  Then  she  said,  A 
bridegroom  of  blood  art  thou,  because  of  the  circumcision.' 

Difficulty. — It  seems  impossible  to  trace  the  connection  of  this 
incident  with  the  narrative^  or  to  discover  what  Zipporah  intended  by 
her  exclamation. 

Explanation. — There  are  few  more  difficult  passages  than  this 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  few  more  striking  instances  of  the  abruptness, 
and  what  we  incline  to  call  extravagance,  of  Eastern  language.  We 
know  so  little  of  Zipporah.  We  understand  so  little  of  the  circum- 
stances of  Moses'  return  to  Egypt.  We  see  so  little  reason  for  such 
a  desperate  outburst  of  temper.  And  explanation  that  can  be 
offered  necessarily  depends  on  our  skill  in  imaginatively  filling  in  the 
episode. 

So  much  as  this  seems  plain  :  Moses,  while  in  the  Sinaitic  district, 
had  neglected  the  rite  of  circumcision,  which  was  the  divinely-ap- 
pointed seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  How  he  came  to  neglect 
it  we  can  well  understand.  He  had  married  a  wife  who  was  not  a 
Hebrew,  who  would  not  recognise  Hebrew  obligations,  and  would 
object  to  what  she  would  regard  as  the  bodily  injury  and  degradation 
of  her  son.  Moses  may  have  wished  to  perform  the  rite,  but  Zip- 
porah had  steadfastly  and  successfully  resisted. 

But  the  man  who  could  not  fully  obey  the  Divine  will,  as  he  knew 
it,  was  not  the  fit  man  to  undertake  Jehovah's  mission  to  Pharaoh. 


494      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Moses,  therefore,  must  be  brought  to  feel  the  sin  of  his  neglect  in 
this  matter.  So  on  the  road  he  was  seized  with  sudden  and  perilous 
illness.  In  the  way  of  Eastern  people,  he  began  at  once  to  think 
what  sin  he  had  committed  which  had  brought  on  him  this  judg- 
ment. What  came  to  mind  was  his  neglect  to  circumcise  his  son. 
He  probably  told  this  to  Zipporah,  and  it,  naturally  enough,  aroused 
her  anger,  because  she  was  the  guilty  one  rather  than  Moses.  In  a 
desperate  spirit  she  did  the  act  herself  which  should  have  been  done 
long  before  by  her  husband.  She  did  not  like  to  be  mastered,  and 
compelled  to  do,  to  save  her  husband's  life,  what  she  had  refused  to 
have  done  so  long.  And  in  the  same  desperate  spirit  she  exclaims  to 
her  husband,  '  A  bridegroom  of  blood  art  thou,'  as  if  she  were  ashamed 
of  a  husband  who  compelled  her  to  take  the  blood  of  her  child. 

This  general  idea  is  presented  in  more  detail  by  Bible  writers. 
Geikie  is  more  considerate  for  Zipporah,  and  gives  another  turn  to 
her  expression :  '  The  incident  of  the  circumcision  of  Gershom,  the 
son  of  Moses,  at  the  caravanserai,  on  the  way  to  Egypt,  is  striking. 
Moses  had  neglected  to  perform  the  rite,  and  was  suddenly  struck 
by  severe  illness,  which  he  traced  to  this  oversight  of  his  duty.  Zip- 
porah, learning  the  fact,  forthwith  circumcises  the  child,  and  Moses 
presently  recovers,  on  which  Zipporah  tells  him  that  she  has  won 
him  again  for  her  bridegroom  by  the  child's  blood,  that  his  life  is 
spared  on  account  of  it,  and  she  has  him,  as  it  were,  given  to  her 
anew  now  this  duty  is  fulfilled.' 

The  Targum  Onkelos  paraphrases  the  exclamation  thus :  '  Had  it 
not  been  for  the  blood  of  circumcision  my  husband  had  been  con- 
demned to  death.' 

The  restoration  of  Moses  from  this  sickness  Zipporah  regarded  as 
having  her  husband  given  to  her  a  second  time ;  and  his  becoming 
again  a  bridegroom  was  due  to  her  fulfilling  the  neglected  act  of 
obedience,  which  caused  her  agony,  and  her  son  blood. 

The  Speakers  Commentary  thinks  the  neglect  was  due  to 
Zipporah's  'not  unnatural  repugnance  to  a  rite  which,  though 
practised  by  the  Egyptians  under  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  and 
perhaps  earlier,  was  not  adopted  generally  in  the  East,  even  by  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  and  Keturah.' 

By  the  later  Jews,  a  newly-circumcised  child  is  called  a  *  spouse ' 
or  *  bridegroom.'  This  has  led  some  to  think  that  Zipporah's  ex- 
clamation was  addressed  to  her  son.  But  that  does  not  appear 
natural ;  it  seems  far-fetched  :  and  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  showing 
that  such  a  name  was  applied  to  a  newly-born  child  in  Zipporah's 
days.  Bishop  Wordsworth  thinks  she  regarded  the  'blood'  as  the 


ZIPPORAH'S  EXCLAMATION.  495 

dowry  by  which  she  obtained  Moses — recovered,  as  it  were,  from  the 
dead — as  a  bridegroom  to  herself. 

Dr.  J.  Macgregor  is  severe  on  Zipporah  :  '  The  deadly  peril  made 
it  necessary  to  circumcise.  If,  however,  she  have  saved  her  husband's 
life,  it  is  at  the  cost  of  her  child's  blood.  And  she  bores  her  husband 
by  throwing  that  as  a  reproach  at  him.  Of  the  religion,  she  does  not 
appear  to  have  any  thought  or  feeling.  If  after  all  she  was  good, 
then  she  was  "  better  than  she  was  bonnie." ' 

The  following  note  is  by  Ewald :  *  When  Moses  turned  back  to 
Egypt  to  effect  Israel's  deliverance,  but  was  overtaken  on  his  way  by 
a  dreadful  sickness,  and  it  seemed  as  though  Jahveh  required  his 
life,  Zipporah,  his  first  wife,*  seized  a  sharp  stone,  with  it  cut  her 
son's  foreskin  off,  threw  this  before  the  feet  of  the  father,  her  husband, 
and  upbraided  him  as  a  bloody  bridegroom  (*>.,  as  a  husband  whom 
she  now  saw  she  had  married  under  the  grievous  condition  of  shedding 
her  child's  blood,  unless  she  were  to  lose  the  husband  himself).  But 
just  at  that  very  juncture  Jahveh  released  Moses ;  and  the  wife,  full 
of  joy  for  the  restoration  of  her  husband,  broke  out  into  the  altered 
exclamation,  "  A  bloody  husband  for  circumcision  "  (i.e.,  I  see  now 
that  the  blood  shall  involve  no  one's  death,  but  only  circumcision). 
More  clearly  than  is  done  in  this  brief  typical  narrative,  the  original 
essence  of  circumcision  according  to  its  most  ancient  significance 
cannot  be  described.  It  is  a  rite  which  cannot  be  performed  without 
loss  of  blood,  and  there  is,  no  doubt,  a  possibility  that  the  patient 
may  die  of  the  wound  ;  it  is,  therefore,  essentially  a  bloody  sacrifice 
of  one's  own  body,  difficult  to  render,  such  as  man  may  regard  with 
shuddering  fear.  But  he  who  has  offered  up  to  his  God  this  flesh 
of  his  own  body  and  this  blood,  and  bears  circumcision  on  his  person 
as  a  permanent  token  of  this  hardest  sacrifice,  becomes  thereby  for 
the  first  time  a  man  well  pleasing  to  his  God,  and  may  even  become 
the  saviour  of  his  father.  Thus  the  tender  mother's  horror  at  such 
an  offering  of  her  son's  blood  turns  into  peace  and  joy.' 

Satan's  Proverb. 

JOB  ii.  4:  'And  Satan  answered  the  Lord,  and  said,  Skin  for  skin,  yea,  all  that 
a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.' 

Difficulty. — The  general  meaning  of  this  proverb  is  plain  enough, 
but  the  expression  '  skin  for  skin  '  is  very  perplexing. 

Explanation. — As  it  stands  in  our  Bible,  it  certainly  does  not 
convey  any  intelligent  meaning  to  us  ;  and  as  the  Revised  Version 

*  It  is  thought  by  many  that  Moses'  so-called  second  wife  was  Zipporah  restored 
to  him. 


496      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

gives  no  alteration,  we  may  assume  that  the  words  adequately  express 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew.  We  must,  therefore,  treat  it  as  an  idiomatic 
expression,  and  endeavour  to  find  what  is  intended  to  be  suggested 
by  it. 

Olshausen  would  read  the  verse :  '  So  long  as  Thou  leavest  his  skin 
untouched,  he  will  also  leave  Thee  untouched.' 

Hupfeld  understands  by  the  skin  that  skin  which  is  here  given  for 
the  other — the  skin  of  his  cattle,  of  his  servants  and  children,  which 
Job  had  gladly  given  up,  that  for  such  a  price  he  might  get  off  with 
his  own  skin  sound. 

Ewald would  translate  'skin  for  skin'  by  'like  for  like,'  which  he 
bases  on  the  strange  assertion  that  one  skin  is  like  another,  as  one 
dead  piece  is  like  another. 

Delitzsch  gives  the  meaning  thus  :  '  One  gives  up  one's  skin  to 
preserve  one's  skin  ;  one  endures  pain  on  a  sickly  part  of  the  skin 
for  the  sake  of  saving  the  whole  skin ;  one  holds  up  the  arm,  as 
Raschi  suggests,  to  avert  the  fatal  blow  from  the  head.  The  second 
clause  is  climacteric — a  man  gives  skin  for  skin  ;  but  for  his  life,  his 
highest  good,  he  willingly  gives  up  everything,  without  exception, 
that  can  be  given  up,  and  life  itself  still  retained.  This  principle 
derived  from  experience,  applied  to  Job,  may  be  expressed  thus  : 
Just  so,  Job  has  gladly  given  up  everything,  and  is  content  to  have 
escaped  with  his  life.' 

Dr.  Mason  Good  suggests  an  explanation  which  is  too  easy.  He 
says :  '  The  skins  or  spoils  of  beasts,  in  the  rude  and  early  ages  of 
man,  were  the  most  valuable  property  he  could  acquire,  and  that  for 
which  he  most  frequently  combated.  Skins  hence  became  the  chief 
representation  of  property,  and  in  many  parts  of  the  world  continue 
so  to  the  present  hour.'  Skin  after  skin,  until  all  his  property  is  gone, 
will  a  man  give  for  his  life. 

The  Targum  translates  :  '  Member  for  member,  one  member  of 
the  body  in  behalf  of,  or  to  cover,  another  member,  as  the  arm  the 
head.' 

The  general  idea  seems  to  be  this  :  '  So  long  as  a  man's  own 
person  is  untouched,  he  may  bear  any  loss  with  comparative  firm- 
ness, give  up  the  skin,  or  life  of  others,  even  of  his  children,  so  that 
his  own  be  safe.'  A  wholly  selfish  sentiment. 

There  is  a  Turkish  proverb  which  may  help  to  explain  it :  '  We 
must  give  up  our  beards  to  save  our  heads.' 

Dr.  Stanley  Leathes  says  :  '  He  means  Job  takes  care  to  have  his 
quid  pro  quo  ;  and  if  the  worst  come  to  the  worst,  a  man  will  give  up 
everything  to  save  his  life.  If,  therefore,  Job  can  save  his  life  at  the 


THE  LISTENING  OF  STONES.  497 

)rice  of  subservience  to  God,  he  will  willingly  pay  that  price  rather 
:han  die ;  but  his  service  is  worth  no  more  than  that  selfish  object 
implies.' 

Self-love  and  self-preservation  are  very  powerful  commanding 
principles  in  the  hearts  of  men  (Matthew  Henry]. 

The  Listening  of  Stones. 

JOSHUA  xxiv.  27:  'And  Joshua  said  unto  all  the  people,  Behold,  this  stone  shall 
be  a  witness  against  us  ;  for  it  hath  heard  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  which  he 
-;pake  unto  us  :  it  shall  be  therefore  a  witness  against  you,  lest  ye  deny  your  God.' 

Question. —  Would  this  appeal  fit  to  the  sentiments  and  associations 
of  the  people  ? 

Answer. — We  may  find  here  an  illustration  of  that  personifying 
disposition  which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  Eastern  mind.  Joshua 
represents  the  stone  as  a  living  thing,  able  to  hear,  and  able  to  give 
forth  a  testimony.  No  more  is  really  meant  than  that  the  monument, 
which  would  be  sacredly  preserved  through  the  generations,  would 
be  a  memorial  of  their  having  thus  solemnly  renewed  their  covenant 
with  Jehovah,  and  would  remind  them,  whenever  they  looked  on  it, 
of  the  events  of  that  day.  The  stone  would  have  the  power  to 
recall  memories  and  suggest  thought,  and  this  may,  poetically,  be 
spoken  of  as  *  making  its  witness.' 

With  the  act  of  Joshua  may  be  compared  the  act  of  Jacob  on 
making  his  vow  after  the  great  night-vision  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  18, 
22)  :  'And  Jacob  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  took  the  stone 
that  he  had  put  for  his  pillows,  and  set  it  up  for  a  pillar,  and  poured 
oil  upon  the  top  of  it.  ...  And  this  stone,  which  I  have  set  for  a 
pillar,  shall  be  God's  house  :  and  of  all  that  Thou  shalt  give  me  I  will 
surely  give  the  tenth  unto  Thee.' 

How  thoroughly  the  act  of  Joshua  fitted  to  the  sentiments  of  his 
time  may  be  further  illustrated  by  the  monuments  raised  at  Gilgal, 
and  the  monument  placed  at  Ed  by  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  on 
their  return  to  the  east  of  Jordan.  The  sentiment  still  prevails  in 
the  East,  and  may  be  illustrated  by  Mr.  Morier's  account  of  what  he 
observed  when  ascending  the  rock  of  Istakhar,  in  Persia :  '  We 
iscended  on  the  north-west  side,  winding  round  the  foot  of  the  rock, 
and  making  our  way  through  narrow  and  intricate  paths.  I  remarked 
-hat  our  old  guide  every  here  and  there  placed  a  stone  on  a  con- 
spicuous bit  of  rock,  or  two  stones  one  upon  the  other,  at  the  same 
time  uttering  some  words,  which  I  learnt  were  a  prayer  for  our  safe 
return.  This  explained  to  me  what  I  had  frequently  seen  before  in 
the  East,  and  particularly  on  a  high-road  leading  to  a  great  town> 

32 


498      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

whence  the  town  is  first  seen,  and  where  the  Eastern  traveller  sets 
up  his  stone,  accompanied  by  a  devout  exclamation,  as  it  were,  in 
token  of  his  safe  arrival.  A  stone  on  the  road  placed  in  this  position, 
one  stone  upon  another,  implies  that  some  traveller  has  there  made 
a  vow  or  a  thanksgiving.' 

The  particular  interest  of  the  above  passage  lies  in  its  illustrating 
the  unreasonableness  of  any  hard  and  fast  lines  of  literal  interpreta- 
tion. The  poetical  element  in  Scripture,  and  the  personifying  ten- 
dency of  the  Eastern  mind,  must  be  fully  recognised,  and  duly 
allowed  for;  and  if  this  seems  quite  plain  to  everyone  in  a  passage 
like  the  above,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  the  principle  thus  estab- 
lished will  help  us  in  the  explanation  of  many  doubtful  and  difficult 
passages.  The  ordinary  principles  of  literary  construction  apply  to 
Holy  Scripture,  and  will  help  us  in  its  elucidation. 

Opening  the  Ears. 

PSALM  xl.  6  (Rev.  Ver. ) :  '  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  hast  no  delight  in  ;  mine 
ears  hast  thou  opened.'  Heb.,  '  Ears  hast  thou  digged  '  (or  pierced)  '  for  me.' 

Question. — Can  the  allusion  in  this  verse  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  and  explained  by  Eastern  customs  ? 

Answer. — The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  quoting 
this  verse  (Heb.  x.  5),  gives  it  a  kind  of  translation  :  'Sacrifice  and 
offering  Thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  didst  Thou  prepare  for  me.' 

The  Hebrew  p1*")?  means,  primarily,  to  dig,  or  hollow  out,  e.g., 
a  well,  Gen.  xxvi.  25 ;  a  pit,  Psalm  vii.  16  ;  or  pitfall,  Psalm  Ivii.  7  : 
a  sepulchre  or  grave,  Gen.  1.  5  ;  2  Chron.  xvi.  14.  But  the  verb  has 
also  the  meaning  of  procuring  or  purchasing.  We  may  therefore 
render  either  '  Mine  ears  hast  Thou  opened,  or  dug  out,'  or  '  Ears  has! 
Thou  provided  for  me.'  The  former  is  more  in  accordance  with  the 
Hebrew  idiorn.  For  the  Hebrews  speak  of  *  opening  the  ears,'  anc 
of  'uncovering  them,'  in  order  to  designate  the  idea  of  prompt 
obedience,  of  attentive  listening  to  the  commands  of  any  one  (Isai.  1 
4,  5).  To  uncover,  to  disclose  the  ear,  means  '  to  communicate  any 
thing,  or  reveal  it  to  another':  see  i  Sam.  xx.  2,  12,  13;  xxii.  17 
The  expression  in  Psalm  xl.  6  may  be  taken  as  a  figure  for  '  Thoi 
hast  made  me  obedient ':  or  '  I  am  entirely  devoted  to  Thy  service.' 

Some  have  suggested  the  translation,  '  Mine  ears  hast  Thou  borec 
through,'  which  seems  to  point  to  the  Hebrew  custom  of  borinj 
through,  with  an  awl,  the  ear  of  a  person  who  became  the  voluntar 
servant  of  another,  as  described  in  Exod.  xxi.  6  ;  Deut.  xv.  17.  Th< 
sentence  would  then  mean, '  I  am,  through  life,  Thy  voluntary  servant. 
But  this  association  cannot  be  maintained. 


OPENING  THE  EARS.  499 

(The  passage  in  Hebrews  is  specially  important  as  showing  what 
liberal  ideas  in  relation  to  quotation  from  the  older  Scriptures  must 
have  prevailed  in  New  Testament  times.  If  the  thought,  or  the 
point,  was  preserved,  writers  showed  no  anxiety  about  securing  the 
precise  original  language.  We  have  elsewhere  shown  that  they 
adopted  as  satisfactory,  and  generally  used,  the  Septuagint  translation 
of  the  Hebrew,  which  is  full  of  variations  in  matters  of  detail.) 

Some  views  taken  by  good  Bible  writers  may  be  given  : 

Delitzsch  thus  explains,  after  comparing  i  Sam.  xv.  22  :  'God — 
says  David — desires  not  outward  sacrifices,  but  obedience  ;  ears  hath 
He  digged  for  me — i.e.,  formed  the  sense  of  hearing,  bestowed  the 
faculty  of  hearing,  and  given  therewith  the  instruction  to  obey. 
There  is  a  similar  expression  in  the  Tamul  Kural  (Graul's  transla- 
tion), "An  ear,  that  was  not  hollowed  out  by  hearing,  has,  even  if 
hearing,  the  manner  of  not  hearing."  The  "  hollowing  out "  meaning, 
in  this  passage,  an  opening  of  the  inward  sense  of  hearing  by  in- 
struction. The  idea  is  not  that  God  has  given  him  ears  in  order  to 
hear  that  disclosure  concerning  the  true  will  of  God,  but,  in  general, 
to  hear  the  word  of  God,  and  to  obey  that  which  is  heard.  God 
desires  not  sacrifice,  but  hearing  ears,  and  consequently  the  sub- 
mission of  the  person  himself  in  willing  obedience.' 

Dean  Perowne  says  :  '  There  is  certainly  no  allusion  to  the  custom 
of  nailing  the  ear  of  the  slave  to  the  door-post,  as  a  symbol  of  per- 
petual servitude  and  obedience  (Exod.  xxi.  6).  For  this  a  technical 
word  would  have  been  used ;  only  one  ear  was  thus  pierced  ;  and  the 
allusion  would  be  far-fetched  and  quite  out  of  place  here.'  The 
following  interpretations  are  offered  by  Perowne  :  '  Thou  hast  so  con- 
structed my  ears  that  they  have  an  open  passage  through  which  Thy 
instructions  can  reach  me.'  *  "  Thou  hast  dug  (or  constructed)  ears 
for  me,"  would  be  equivalent  to  saying,  "  Thou  hast  given  me  ears 
to  hear  ;"  that  which  is  literally  true  of  the  structure  of  the  bodily  ear 
being  here  transferred  in  a  figure  to  the  spiritual  ear,  as  is  evident 
from  the  context.' 

The  Speakers  Commentary  says  :  '  The  hearing  ear,  the  legal  equi- 
valent to  evangelical  faith,  is  the  first  condition  of  inner  communion 
with  God,  and  as  such  presents  a  perfect  antithesis  to  the  outward 
form,  which  merely  represents  the  condition.  The  very  remarkable 
rendering  by  the  LXX.  quoted  in  Heb.  x.  5,  "  A  body  hast  Thou  pre- 
pared me,"  or  "  fitted  me,"  may  be  explained  by  supposing  that  the 
opening  of  the  ear  was  regarded  as  equivalent  to  the  consecration  of 
all  bodily  faculties  to  God's  service.' 


32—2 


500      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


'Who   is   their  Father?' 

i  SAMUEL  x.  12  :  'And  one  of  the  same  place  answered  and  said,  But  who  is 
their  father  ?  Therefore  it  became  a  proverb,  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?' 

Question. — Can  this  very  obscure  and  difficult  exclamation  be 
explained  ? 

Answer.— Bishop  Wordsworth  reads  :  '  Who  is  the  father  of  the 
prophets  ?  Not  man,  but  God.  And  God  can  make  even  Saul,  whom 
ye  despise,  to  be  a  prophet  also.' 

W.  J.  Deane,  M.A.,  thus  describes  what  took  place  :  '  Now,  when 
Saul  met  this  company  (of  prophets),  and  saw  their  enthusiasm,  and 
heard  their  stirring  music,  his  heart  was  strangely  moved,  the  Spirit 
of  God  came  upon  him,  and  he,  untrained  as  he  was,  joined  with  all 
his  powers  in  the  ecstatic  songs  and  praises  which  issued  from  the 
prophet's  lips.  This  was,  indeed,  a  new  thing  in  the  life  of  Saul,  and 
astonished  his  fellow-townsmen,  and  those  who  had  known  him  all 
his  life.  "  What  is  it  ?"  they  cried,  "  that  hath  happened  to  the  son 
of  Kish  ?  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?"  They  were  utterly 
amazed  that  one  of  no  cultivation,  a  rustic  with  a  mind  hitherto 
occupied  only  in  petty  concerns,  should  vie  with  these  highly-educated 
youths,  and  take  a  ready  part  in  their  exercises.  They  did  not 
recognise  the  Divine  influence  which  had  effected  this  sudden  change. 
But  one  inhabitant,  wiser  than  the  rest,  saw  deeper  into  the  matter. 
"  Ye  are  surprised,"  said  he,  "  that  the  son  of  Kish  should  be  thus 
endowed.  But  what  has  parentage  to  do  with  prophetic  gifts  ? 
Who  is  the  father  (in  the  sense  of  originator)  of  the  other  scholars  ? 
Is  prophecy  an  hereditary  gift  ?  If  they  received  their  ability  from 
God,  why  may  it  not  be  so  also  with  Saul  ?" ' 

Canon  Spence  says  :  '  As  an  instance  of  the  extreme  surprise  with 
which  the  association  of  Saul  with  the  sons  of  the  prophets  was 
witnessed  by  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah — an  association  apparently 
very  foreign  to  his  old  habits,  and  to  the  manner  of  life  of  his  family — 
a  short  dialogue  between  two  of  the  citizens  of  Gibeah  is  here  related: 
a  conversation  important,  owing  to  the  words  uttered  by  the  second 
citizen  in  reply  to  the  amazed  question,  "What  is  this  that  has  come 
to  the  son  of  Kish  ?"  The  reply  gives  us  some  insight  into  the  deep 
conviction  entertained  by  the  ordinary  Israelite  of  the  days  of  Samuel, 
that  the  invisible  God  was  ever  present,  working  in  the  midst  of  His 
chosen  people.' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  gives  both  the  possible  explanations : 
*  This  is  an  obscure  phrase.  Some  understand  by  father  the  head  or 


THE  EXPRESSION  <  UNTO  THIS  DAY:          501 

leader  of  the  'prophets,  as  e.g.,  T  Chron.  xxv.  6  ;  2  Kings  ii.  1 2,  and 
think  the  question,  Who  is  their  father?  means,  What  kind  of  leader 
can  they  have  to  admit  such  a  person  as  Saul  into  the  company  ? 
Others  take  the  words  as  an  answer  or  reproof  to  the  objectors,  in 
this  sense,  Who  is  their  father?  Is  not  God  the  giver  of  their 
spiritual  life,  and  cannot  He  give  the  same  gift  to  Saul  if  He  pleases  ? 
But  the  Sept.,  Vulg.  (according  to  some  copies),  Syr.,  and  Arab. 
Versions  all  read  (with  greater  probability),  Who  is  his  father?  as 
a  further  enchancement  of  the  wonder.  And  ivho  is  his  father? 
Cod.  Vat.  The  Cod.  Alexand.  adds  :  "  Is  it  not  Kish  ?"  One  printed 
edition  of  the  Vulgate  (Lyons,  1542)  has  "  Et  Cis  Pater  ejus?" 
Who  would  have  expected  Kish  to  have  a  son  among  the  prophets  ? 
Just  as  Matt.  xiii.  54,  55,  the  wonder  at  the  works  of  Jesus  is 
cumulated  by  reference  to  his  parents  and  brethren,  and  as  Amos 
says  (chap.  vii.  14)  :  "I  was  no  prophet,  neither  was  I  a  prophet's 
son."  The  questions  may  have  run,  "  Who  is  Saul,  and  who  is  his 
father  Kish  ?"  somewhat  after  the  analogy  of  i  Sam.  xxv.  10  ;  2  Sam. 

XX.    I.' 

The  Expression  "Unto  this  Day.' 

DEUTERONOMY  iii.  14  :  '  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh  took  all  the  country  of  Argob 
unto  the  coasts  of  Geshuri  and  Maachathi ;  and  called  them  after  his  own  name, 
Bashan-havoth-jair,  unto  this  day.' 

Question. —  What  limitation  must  be  put  on  the  time  indicated  by 
thisfreguent  expression  in  the  historical  Scriptures  ? 

Answer. — If  the  term  had  not  been  so  strangely  misused,  we 
should  not  have  needed  to  say  that  it  cannot  possibly  be  equivalent 
to  'modern  times.'  The  natural  limit  is  the  date  on  which  the 
chapter  was  written;  and  then  some  difficulty  is  created  by  the 
uncertainty  of  the  age  of  Deuteronomy — at  least,  in  the  form  in  which 
it  has  come  to  us. 

But  probably  the  term  is  idiomatic,  and  means  what  we  mean  by 
our  familiar  term  'until  now,'  which  merely  expresses  'unexpected 
continuance.'  Bishop  Wordsworth  says  it  is  'a  phrase  used  to 
describe  a  fact  which  happened  recently,  and  had  continued  under 
circumstances  that  might  have  been  expected  to  produce  an  inter- 
ruption in  a  period  even  of  short  duration.  The  interval  here  speci- 
fied is  from  the  time  mentioned  in  Numb.  xxi.  to  the  eleventh  month 
of  the  fortieth  year  (Deut.  i.  3) ;  and  it  was  certainly  a  noteworthy 
thing,  and  one  which  might  well  be  mentioned  as  a  motive  to  thank- 
fulness and  faith,  that  God  had  subdued  so  many  cities  of  this  mighty 


502      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

king  by  the  ami  of  an  Israelite,  and  should  have  retained  them  under 
his  power  even  for  a  short  time.' 

Some  writers  think  that  this  expression  must  have  been  introduced 
by  Ezra,  or  some  of  the  pious  men  who  arranged  and  collected  the 
books  of  Moses;  but  this  is  too  large  an  explanation  for  a  mere 
phrase,  a  colloquialism  of  the  age. 

Waller  notices  that  the  words  '  unto  this  day '  are  characteristically 
common  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  traces  the  presence  of  the  words 
in  the  passage  heading  this  paragraph  to  the  writing  or  editing  of 
Joshua. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  phrase  is  frequent  in  Genesis,  but  is 
not  found  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  or  Numbers.  The  sense  in  which  it 
is  used  may  be  discovered  by  comparing  instances.  Take  Joshua 
xxii.  3.  There  it  plainly  denotes  the  few  months  during  which  the 
two  tribes  and  a  half  had  assisted  their  brethren  in  the  conquest  of 
the  land  west  of  Jordan.  Take  Josh,  xxiii.  9.  There  the  reference 
is  to  the  period  that  had  passed  from  the  beginning  of  the  victories 
of  the  Israelites  to  the  close  of  Joshua's  life. 

There  is  probably  no  more  in  Deut.  iii.  14  than  the  assertion  that 
'Jair  had  so  thoroughly  made  himself  master  of  the  cities  of  the 
district  as  that  they  were  now  currently  known  by  his  name.'  It  is 
not  well  to  resort  to  the  assumption  of  a  gloss,  or  late  editorial 
addition,  to  explain  a  difficulty,  until  every  simple,  common-sense, 
and  reasonable  suggestion  has  been  fairly  tried. 

Thunder  Clothing  the  Horse's  Neck. 

JOB  xxxix.  19  :  *  Hast  thou  given  the  horse  strength  ?  hast  thou  clothed  his  neck 
with  thunder  ?' 

Difficulty. — This  seems  to  be  a  singularly  extravagant  and  unsuit- 
able figure. 

Explanation. — It  is  evidently  an  imperfect  representation  of  the 
original  term.  And  this  is  brought  to  view  by  the  Revised  Version, 
which  reads :  '  Hast  thou  given  the  horse  his  might  ?  Hast  thou 
clothed  his  neck  with  the  quivering  (marg.  shaking)  mane  ?' 

Some  have  proposed  to  read  '  a  voice  of  thunder,'  and  see  a  refer 
ence  to  the  neighing  of  the  horse.  But  this  cannot  be  properb 
associated  with  his  neck. 

Canon  Cook  says :  '  This  translation  "  thunder "  is  general!] 
abandoned.  The  word,  however,  denotes  convulsive  trembling,  no 
of  fear,  but  of  rage ;  or,  as  a  secondary  meaning,  "  thunder."  Th. 
point  which  struck  those  who  saw  for  the  first  time  the  mighty  wai 
horse  in  battle  must  have  been  the  terror  of  the  neck  with  its  quivei 


THUNDER  CLOTHING  THE  HORSE'S  NECK.     503 

ing  muscles  and  tossing  mane,  and  the  word  here  used  denotes  most 
probably  that  impression.  Clothed  with  terror  may  be  the  best 
rendering ;  it  includes  the  idea  of  a  vehement  and  terrific  movement. 
But  "thunder,"  if  understood  metaphorically,  is  an  apter  translation 
than  "mane,"  a  rendering  which  has  no  authority  in  Hebrew,  or  any 
cognate  dialect,  and  is  dry  hard  prose.' 

It  is  clear  that  the  poet  has  in  mind  the  war-horse  under  all  the 
excitement  of  approaching  battle.  See  the  following  verses.  With  this 
description  may  be  compared  that  of  Virgil  (Sotheby's  translation)  : 

*  But  at  the  clash  of  arms,  his  ear  afar 
Drinks  the  deep  sound,  and  vibrates  to  the  war  ; 
Flames  from  each  nostril  roll  in  gathered  stream  ; 
His  quivering  limbs  with  restless  motion  gleam  ; 
O'er  his  right  shoulder,  floating  full  and  fair, 
Sweeps  his  thick  mane,  and  spreads  his  pomp  of  hair  : 
Swift  works  his  double  spine  ;  and  earth  around 
Rings  to  the  solid  hoof  that  wears  the  ground.' 

Dr.  Davidson  proposes  :  'Dost  thou  clothe  his  neck  with  trembling? 
-And  he  adds:  'The  word  "trembling"  hardly  refers  to  the  mane 
alone,  but  rather  describes  the  quivering  of  the  neck,  when  the 
animal  is  roused,  which  erects  the  mane.' 

Delitzsch  says :  '  The  neck,  properly  the  twister,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  voice  of  neighing,  and  the  reference  is  to  the  quivering, 
trembling,  shaking  of  the  mane.' 

The  Senses  of  the  Word  <  Create/ 

GENESIS  i.  i  :  '  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.' 

Question. — Can  the  early  Hebrew  applications  of  this  word  be 
ascertained  ? 

Answer. — The  philosophical  conceptions  'forming  out  of  nothing/ 
'  bringing  into  being,'  are  not  absolutely  essential  to  a  proper  appre- 
hension of  the  term.  It  will  fully  meet  the  Mosaic  idea  if  we  limit 
the  meaning  to  this — «  fashion,'  'form,'  'set  in  order,'  'arrange.' 

But  it  requires  to  be  noticed  that  the  English  word  '  create '  is 
made  to  represent  the  shades  of  meaning  in  more  than  one  Hebrew 
term.  Four  different  verbs  are  used  to  express  the  creative  work  of 
God,  viz.:  (i)  to  create,  (2)  to  make,  (3)  to  form,  (4)  to  build.  The 
original  idea  in  the  word  seems  to  have  been  '  to  hew  stone '  or  '  to 
fell  timber.'  But  '  almost  all  abstract  or  spiritual  thoughts  are  ex- 
pressed by  words  which  were  originally  concrete  and  sensuous.' 

We  need  to  keep  in  mind  the  object  which  Moses  held  before  him 
in  preserving  these  early  records.  His  purpose  was  religious;  it  was 
neither  philosophical  nor  scientific.  The  question  of  the  eternity  of 


5o4      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

matter  is  a  purely  philosophical  question,  and  could  not  have  entered 
the  mind  of  the  early  Hebrew.  What  Moses  asserts  is,  the  absolutely 
indisputable  association  of  God  only  with  all  forms  of  existence. 
God  is  first :  whatever  exists  comes  after  Him,  and  takes  its  shapings 
from  His  action.  This  is  his  point — whatever  state  of  things  you 
find,  associate  the  thought  of  God  with  it :  He  shaped  and  fashioned 
it.  This  is  the  fact  which  provides  adequate  foundation  for  the 
universal  religion  of  humanity.  One  only  God.  Everything  from 
Him.  Man  His. 

The  idea  of  '  God's  making  all  things  out  of  nothing '  is  first  found 
in  2  Mac.  vii.  28 :  'I  beseech  thee,  my  son,  look  up  to  the 
heaven  and  the  earth,  and  all  things  that  are  seen  in  them,  and  know 
that  from  things  that  are  not  (c %  ovx  OVTUV)  God  made  them,  and  the 
race  of  men  thus  came  into  being.' 

If  we  think  closely,  we  shall  find  that  we  have  no  associations 
which  enable  us  to  realize  the  absolute  idea  of  creation.  In  the  sense 
of  *  making  out  of  nothing '  man  never  '  creates  '  anything,  or  can 
create.  Yet  we  do  use  the  word  of  man's  works,  and  we  understand 
it  to  mean  *  give  shape  and  order  to  things.'  That  idea  we  may 
properly  attach  to  the  term,  as  it  is  used  by  Moses  concerning  God. 
The  absolute  origination  of  material  existence  is  something  about 
which  philosophers  may  dream,  but  no  ordinary  mind  ever  can  attach 
any  meaning  to  the  idea. 

Among  grammarians  there  is  marked  difference  of  opinion  con- 
cerning the  meanings  of  the  word  'bara,'  create.  They  may  be 
represented  by  Gesenius  and  Delitzsch.  Gesenius  says  :  '  The  use  of 
this  verb  in  Kal  (the  conjugation  here  employed)  is  entirely  different 
from  the  primary  signification  (to  cut,  to  shape,  to  iashion),  and  is 
used  rather  of  the  new  production  of  a  thing  than  of  the  shaping  or 
elaboration  of  existing  material.  That  the  first  verse  of  Genesis 
teaches  that  the  original  creation  of  the  world  in  its  rude  and  chaotic 
state  was  from  nothing,  while  in  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  the 
elaboration  and  distribution  of  the  matter  thus  created  is  taught,  the 
connection  of  the  whole  section  shows  sufficiently  clearly.' 

Delitzsch  says :  *  The  word  bara,  in  its  etymology,  does  not 
exclude  a  previous  material.  It  has,  as  the  use  of  the  conjugation 
Piel  shows,  the  fundamental  idea  of  cutting  or  hewing.  But  as  in 
other  languages  words  which  define  creation  by  God  have  the  same 
etymological  idea  at  their  root,  so  "  bara  "  has  acquired  the  idiomatic 
meaning  of  a  Divine  creating,  which,  whether  in  the  kingdom  of 
nature,  or  of  history,  or  of  spirit,  calls  into  being  that  which  hitherto 
had  no  existence.  "  Bara  "  never  appears  as  the  word  for  human 


THE  SENSES  OF  THE   WORD  '  CREATE?        505 

creations,  differing  in  this  from  the  synonyms  "asak,""yatzar,"  "yalad," 
which  are  used  both  of  men  and  of  God — it  is  never  used  with  an 
accusative  of  the  material,  and  even  from  this  it  follows  that  it 
defines  the  Divine  creative  act  as  one  without  any  limitations,  and 
its  result,  as  to  its  proper  material,  as  entirely  new ;  and  as  to  its 
first  cause,  entirely  the  creation  of  Divine  power.' 

Lange,  giving  the  opinions  of  Rabbi  Aben  Ezra  and  Rabbi  Schelomo, 
says  :  '  These  learned  Jewish  commentators,  although  of  all  theists 
the  most  free  from  any  tinge  of  pantheism,  or  belief  in  the  eternity 
of  matter,  interpret  this  account  as  setting  forth  simply  the  creation 
of  our  world  and  heaven,  regarded,  too,  as  commencing  with  them  in 
a  certain  unformed  condition.  So  that  by  these  writers  the  Mosaic 
creation  is  regarded  as  formation  rather  than  as  primal  origination  of 
matter.'  Great  importance  should  be  attached  to  this  opinion,  as 
probably  representing  the  views  taken  by  those  to  whom  the  Mosaic 
account  was  first  given. 

•  Lange  decidedly  favours  the  limitation  of  the  term  'create.'  '  The 
word  "  bara,"  it  is  maintained,  denotes  primal  origination,  and  some 
would  even  contend,  in  defiance  of  etymology,  that  such  is  its 
primary  and  radical  idea.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  everywhere  else 
in  this  account  it  must  mean  something  quite  different.  It  is  con- 
stantly afterwards  used  of  Divine  acts  or  works  which  could  only 
have  been  the  giving  form  to  matter  that  already  is.  In  all  the 
dividings,  the  gatherings,  the  evolutions  of  the  plants  and  animals, 
the  ordaining  and  disposing  of  the  heavenly  lights,  the  firmament, 
and  even  the  making  of  the  human  body,  there  is  no  new  matter. 
.  .  .  All  these  are  constructions,  formations,  dispositions  of  matter ; 
and  this  is  certainly  creation,  whilst  there  is  no  evidence,  except  an 
assumption  (not  exegetical,  but  rationalizing)  of  its  meaning  some- 
thing else  quite  different  in  the  first  verse.  .  .  .  Since,  then,  it  is  very 
difficult  to  make  the  fair  verbal  exegesis  speak  decidedly  either  way, 
may  we  not  infer  from  this  that  we  over-rate  the  importance  of  one 
aspect  of  the  question  as  compared  with  the  other?  Besides  the 
clear  implication  aforesaid,  which  would  make  the  recognition  of  a 
structural  creation  at  some  particular  time  inseparable  from  the 
recognition  of  an  absolute  first  origination  of  matter  in  its  own  time 
or  times,  there  may  be  a  question  as  to  which  is  really  the  greater 
work,  or  more  worthy  of  revelation,  or  which  ought  to  have  the 
greatest  place  in  our  minds — this  bare  origination  of  the  first  matter, 
or  the  giving  form  to  that  matter.' 

We  have  only  dealt  with  this  subject  as  far  as  the  first  meaning  of 
the  word  is  concerned. 


506      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


Rahab,  the    Mystical   Name  of  Egypt. 

PSALM  Ixxxix.  10 :  '  Thou  hast  broken  Rahab  in  pieces,  as  one  that  is  slain  ; 
thou  hast  scattered  thine  enemies  with  thy  strong  arm.' 

Question  — Can  the  reason  for  associating  this  name  with  Egypt 
be  recovered  ? 

Answer. — 'Originally  the  word  denotes  "pride,"  "ferocity." 
So  in  Job  ix.  13,  "  The  helpers  of  pride  (Rahab)  do  stoop  under  him  " 
Possibly  even  there,  but  certainly  in  Job  xxvi.  12,  it  is  the  name  of 
some  fierce  monster  of  the  deep,  probably  the  crocodile  :  "  He 
divideth  the  sea  by  His  power,  and  by  His  understanding  He 
smiteth  the  proud  monster  (Rahab),"  where  the  LXX.  have  x5jro$, 
whale.  In  Psalm  Ixxxix.  10  (n),  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
reference  to  Egypt :  "  Thou  hast  broken  Rahab  in  pieces,"  the 
crocodile  of  the  Nile  being  there  taken  as  the  symbol  of  that  king- 
dom. So,  too,  in  Isai.  li.  9,  "Art  thou  not  it  that  hast  cut  Rahab  " 
(i.e.  smitten  Egypt)  "and  wounded  the  dragon?"  and  xxx.  9, 
"  The  Egyptians  shall  help  in  vain.  .  .  .  They  are  Rahab  (proud, 
mighty,"  etc.).  The  name,  then,  is  applied  to  Egypt  as  a  vast  and 
formidable  power,  of  which  the  crocodile  might  naturally  be  regarded 
as  the  symbol.  Ewald  supposes  it  to  be  connected  with  the 
Egyptian  name  Rif,  and  refers  to  Burckhardt's  Nubia,  p.  457 ' 
(Dean  Peroivne). 

A  glen  says  :  '  Rahab  undoubtedly  stands  for  Egypt,  but  the  exact 
origin  of  the  term  and  of  its  connection  with  Egypt  is  much  disputed. 
Most  probably  it  is  a  term  (possibly  Coptic)  for  some  large  sea  or 
river  monster  symbolic  of  Egypt.'  In  the  verse  above,  Psalm  Ixxxix.  10, 
'The  mention  of  the  sea  has  carried  the  poet's  thoughts  to  the 
Red  Sea  and  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  which  is  represented  as 
some  huge  monster  conquered  and  crushed.' 

Watering  with  the  Foot. 

DEUTERONOMY  xi.  10  :  *  For  the  land,  whither  thou  goest  in  to  possess  it,  is 
not  as  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  whence  ye  came  out,  where  thou  sowedst  thy  seed, 
and  wateredst  it  with  thy  foot,  as  a  garden  of  herbs.' 

Question. —  What  method  of  irrigation  is  indicated  by  this  expres- 
sion ? 

Answer. — Neil  tells  us  that  '  the  burning  rainless  heat  for  six 
months  running,  from  the  end  of  April  to  the  end  of  October,  makes 
it  impossible  to  have  a  garden  of  any  value  in  Palestine  unless  it  is 
thoroughly  irrigated  once  a  week ;  and  possible,  when  thus  supplied 


WATERING    WITH  THE  FOOT.  507 

with  "  the  water  of  life,"  to  have  one  that  is  green  and  fruitful  all  the 
year  round,  yielding  no  less  than  four  crops,  and  the  varied  products 
of  almost  all  temperate  and  tropical  climes  !  In  these  "  watered 
gardens,"  the  labourers,  all  of  whose  limbs  are  naked,  work  almost 
as  much  with  their  feet  as  with  their  hands.  The  ground  is  divided 
into  little  plots  about  twelve  feet  square,  surrounded  by  tiny  trenches, 
and,  when  turning  the  rills  from  the  main  stream  into  each  of  these, 
the  gardener  kicks  a  hole  with  his  foot  into  the  trench  through  the 
lightly  turned-up  soil,  and  after  sufficient  water  has  run  past,  he  stops 
up  the  breach  in  the  same  easy  fashion.' 

Van  Lennep  describes  a  more  mechanical  contrivance.  '  The  chief 
current,  conducted  through  a  garden,  is  made  to  flow  along  rows  of 
such  fruit-trees  as  most  need  its  moisture,  as  the  pomegranate,  apricot, 
quince,  orange,  lemon,  and  mulberry,  which  are  thus  secured  against 
the  possibility  of  drought.  The  ground  is  levelled  and  laid  out  in 
beds,  each  of  which  is  bordered  by  a  rim  of  soil  wide  enough  for  the 
gardener  to  walk  upon.  As  each  bed  in  turn  is  watered,  a  little  heap 
of  mud  closes  up  the  opening  previously  made,  and  the  current  runs 
on  to  the  next  bed.  The  instrument  employed  in  doing  this  has  the 
form  of  a  hoe,  but  the  handle  is  only  two  feet  long,  while  the  iron 
portion  of  it  is  much  larger  than  that  of  our  hoe,  and  is  in  shape 
somewhat  concave.  It  takes  up  at  once  the  requisite  amount  of 
mud,  which  is  laid  across  the  opening,  and  pressed  by  the  bare  foot 
of  the  gardener  so  as  completely  to  arrest  the  farther  ingress  of  the 
water ;  much  of  the  watering,  however,  is  done  simply  with  the  feet, 
and  this  is  particularly  the  case  in  Egypt.  The  process  is  alluded  to 
in  this  passage,  which  indicates  that  gardening  was  a  common  employ- 
ment of  the  Israelites  while  in  Egypt,  where  nothing  grew  without 
irrigation ;  whereas  Palestine,  whither  they  were  going,  was  watered 
by  the  rains  and  dews  of  heaven,  so  that  a  resort  to  irrigation  would 
be  the  exception.  Philo>  however,  describes  a  process  of  watering 
which  existed  in  Egypt  in  his  day,  to  which  some  have  thought  that 
Moses  referred  in  this  passage.  "  A  wheel  is  turned  by  a  man  with 
the  motion  of  his  feet  by  ascending  the  several  steps  that  are  within 
it.  But  as,  while  he  is  thus  continually  turning,  he  cannot  keep  him- 
self up,  he  holds  a  stay  in  his  hands,  and  this  supports  him  ;  so  that 
in  this  work  the  hands  do  the  office  of  the  feet,  and  the  feet  that  of 
the  hands ;  since  the  hands,  which  should  act,  are  at  rest,  and  the 
feet,  which  should  be  at  rest,  are  in  action,  and  give  motion  to  the 
wheel."  In  modern  times  Niebuhr  saw  a  similar  machine  in  Cairo, 
which  he  terms  sakieh  te-dur  bir-regel  (a  watering-machine  that  turns 
by  the  foot).' 


5o8      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Geikie  says  of  the  gardener  who  '  waters  with  his  foot :'  *  The  poor 
gardener  has  a  miserable  task,  paddling  bare-legged  in  the  mud  hour 
after  hour.' 

Rahab's   Scarlet  Line. 

JOSHUA  ii.  21  :  'And  she  sent  them  away,  and  they  departed  :  and  she  bound 
the  scarlet  line  in  the  window.' 

Question. — Can  a  simple  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  act 
be  suggested  ? 

Answer. — Attention  is  directed  to  this  passage  as  presenting  one 
of  the  most  striking  illustrations  of  the  mistake  of  over-spiritualizing 
Bible  language.  Anything  we  please  can  be  made  out  of  the  Bible, 
and  proved  from  the  Bible,  if  we  go  upon  the  principle  of  bringing 
our  own  ideas  to  the  Bible,  and  expecting  to  find  them  there.  The 
most  rabid  sectarianism,  and  the  most  extravagant  sentiment,  can  in 
this  way  be  made  to  rest  on  Bible  language.  It  is  the  corrective  of 
this  serious  mistake  to  insist  that,  in  every  instance,  \hefirst  meaning 
of  a  passage,  as  it  stands  in  its  connection,  shall  be  discovered. 
This  '  scarlet  line '  has  been  made  to  represent  the  '  blood  of  Christ,' 
by  this  strange  tendency  to  over-spiritualize. 

This  tendency  is  manifest  in  the  comments  of  the  early  Fathers  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  has  been  found,  in  a  section,  in  every  age 
down  to  our  own  times.  A  few  of  the  notes  on  this  verse  by  early 
commentators  will  illustrate  the  mistake,  and  enable  us  to  set  in 
strong  contrast  the  common-sense  explanation  which  is  at  hand. 

St.  Clement  says  :  '  On  account  of  her  faith  and  hospitality,  Rahab, 
the  harlot,  was  saved  .  .  .  and  the  spies  commanded  her  to  bring 
all  her  kindred  into  her  house ;  and  they  also  dictated  to  her  this 
sign — namely,  that  she  should  hang  from  her  house  the  scarlet  line, 
thus  declaring  that  through  the  blood  of  the  Lord  there  is  redemption 
to  all  who  believe  and  trust  in  God.' 

St.  Irenceus  says  :  '  Rahab,  the  harlot,  received  the  spies  ;  and  when 
at  the  sound  of  the  seven  trumpets  the  city  of  Jericho  fell  where  she 
dwelt,  she  was  saved  with  her  whole  house  through  faith  in  the 
scarlet  sign  ;  as  the  Lord  afterwards  said  to  the  Pharisees  who  did 
not  receive  Him,  and  who  nullify  the  sign  of  the  scarlet  thread,  which 
was  no  other  than  the  type  of  redemption  and  deliverance  of  the 
people  by  the  True  Passover,  "  The  publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the 
kingdom  before  you." ' 

St.  Justin  Martyr  says  :  '  Thus  was  presignified  that  mankind 
would  be  saved  by  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  the  token  of  the  scarlet 
thread,  which  was  prescribed  by  Joshua's  messengers  to  Rahab,  who 


RAHAB' S  SCARLET  LINE.  509 

was  commanded  by  them  to  hang  it  from  her  window,  by  which  they 
had  been  let  down,  in  like  manner  exhibited  a  sign  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  by  means  of  which  they  of  all  nations,  who  were  formerly 
fornicators  and  unrighteous,  are  saved,  receiving  remission  of  their 
sins,  and  no  longer  continuing  in  sin.' 

Origen  says  :  '  The  sign  which  Rahab  was  required  to  use  was  of 
scarlet,  the  colour  of  blood,  for  there  is  salvation  to  none  but  through 
the  blood  of  Christ.  Blood  is  the  sign  prescribed,  for  by  blood  we 
are  cleansed.  Perhaps  the  window  was  chosen  as  the  place  for  the 
suspension  of  the  scarlet  line,  for  the  window  was  the  means  of  light 
to  the  house ;  and  by  means  of  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  we  behold 
as  through  a  window,  the  light  of  the  Godhead,  as  far  as  we  are  able 
to  behold  it.  ...  In  order  that  she  might  be  saved,  when  Jericho 
was  destroyed,  she  received  a  significant  token  of  salvation,  the  scarlet 
line  ;  for  by  the  blood  of  Christ  the  whole  Church  is  saved.' 

Matthew  Henry  may  represent  modern  commentators,  but  he 
writes  on  the  matter  with  much  caution,  as  if  the  idea  was  not 
altogether  acceptable  to  himself.  He  says  :  '  This  was  like  the  blood 
sprinkled  upon  the  door-post,  which  secured  the  first-born  from  the 
destroying  angel,  and,  being  of  the  same  colour,  some  allude  to  this 
also  to  represent  the  safety  of  believers,  under  the  protection  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  sprinkled  on  the  conscience.' 

Unfortunately  for  this  mode  of  commenting,  it  has,  in  this  instance, 
no  basis  whatever,  for  in  the  original  language  the  word  for  the 
'  scarlet  cord '  is  not  the  same  word  as  that  for  the  rope,  with  which 
the  spies  were  let  down. 

Lange's  Commentary  points  out  the  distinction  between  1£,  line, 
and  ^3Q,  rope ;  and  Waller,  in  Ellicotfs  Commentary,  says :  '  It 
seems  almost  needless  to  observe  that  the  scarlet  line  and  the  cord 
by  which  the  men  were  lowered  are  not  the  same  thing,  but  described 
by  different  words  in  the  original.  It  would  have  been  preposterous 
to  require  Rahab  to  display  in  her  window  the  means  by  which  the 
spies  had  escaped.  It  would  at  once  have  declared  the  tale  to  all 
beholders — the  very  thing  Rahab  was  pledged  not  to  do.  The  "  line 
of  scarlet  thread  "  and  the  "  stalks  of  flax  "  on  the  roof  were  probably 
parts  of  the  same  business,  and  thus  there  would  be  nothing  un- 
usual in  what  was  exhibited  at  the  window,  although  it  would  be  a 
sufficient  token,  to  those  who  were  in  the  secret,  to  enable  them  to 
identify  the  house.' 

Roberts  gives  an  association  of  Eastern  thought  with  scarlet  threads 
which  goes  far  towards  explaining  the  selection  of  this  sign  :  '  The 
scarlet  thread,  in  this  instance,  might  be  nothing  more  than  a  sign  ; 


5io      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

it  is,  however,  sacred  among  the  Hindoos.  When  the  devotees  hear 
the  history  of  the  god  Pulliar,  which  takes  up  twenty-one  days,  a 
scarlet  thread  is  tied  round  the  right  arm,  which  shows  that  they 
are  engaged  in  a  sacred  duty,  and  that  during  that  period  "  they  will 
not  commit  sin."  When  the  priest  whispers  the  ubatheasam  in  the 
ear  of  a  youth,  the  thread  is  tied  in  the  same  way,  to  denote  the  same 
thing.  On  the  day  of  marriage  the  scarlet  is  bound  round  the  right 
wrist,  but  is  taken  off  on  the  fourth  day.  When  a  person  learns  to 
fence  or  goes  into  battle,  the  thread  is  fixed  round  the  right  arm  or 
right  ankle.  The  priest  also  sometimes  binds  it  round  the  wrist  of  a 
person  in  the  article  of  death.  It  is  called  haapu,  which  signifies 
"guard  or  protector;"  and  is  applied  also,  in  the  same  sense,  to 
bracelets,  armlets,  or  anklets.  A  person  having  on  a  scarlet  thread 
will  not  be  interrupted ;  and  during  the  period  he  will  neither  shave 
nor  bathe,  and  will  endeavour  to  be  very  moral.  See  Gen.  xxxviii. 
28.' 

Lamech's  Boasting. 

GENESIS  iv.  23,  24  :  '  And  Lamech  said  unto  his  wives,  Adah  and  Zillah,  Hear 
my  voice,  ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech  ;  for  I  have  slain  a  man  to 
my  wounding,  and  a  young  man  to  my  hurt.  If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 
truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold.' 

Difficulty. — Neither  the  meaning  of  Lamech *s  saying,  nor  the 
reason  for  its  being  preserved  in  the  Scripture  records^  is  easy  to 
find. 

Explanation. — The  passage  is  given  in  poetical  form,  and  we 
may  therefore  assume  that  it  is  a  poetical  setting  of  Lamech's  boast, 
and  not  the  precise  words  he  used.  The  poetical  form  helped  to 
secure  its  preservation.  It  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  extrava- 
gance, and  what  we  should  call  unnaturalness,  of  the  early  ancient 
poetical  figures.  We  can  only  guess,  more  or  less  hopefully,  what 
Lamech  could  have  meant. 

The  Revised  Version  materially  helps  us  towards  an  understand- 
ing of  the  passage,  by  giving  more  precise  equivalents  for  the  Hebrew 

terms : 

*  And  Lamech  said  unto  his  wives  : 
Adah  and  Zillah,  hear  my  voice  ; 
Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech  : 
For  I  have  slain  a  man  for  wounding  me, 
And  a  young  man  for  bruising  me  : 
If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  sevenfold, 
Truly  Lamech  seventy  and  sevenfold.' 

As  alternative  readings  are  given,  'I  will  slay,'  for  'I  have  slain'; 
and  *  to  my  wounding,  and  a  young  man  to  my  hurt,'  in  place  of  '  for 
wounding  me,'  etc. 


LAMECH'S  BOASTING.  511 

Three  explanations  have  been  suggested : 

Geddes  says :  *  The  act  of  Lamech,  in  taking  to  himself  two  wives, 
had  probably  excited  the  jealousy  of  some  young  man,  who,  under 
the  impulse  of  this  passion,  had  attacked  and  wounded  Lamech,  and 
whom  Lamech  in  his  own  defence  had  slain.  To  allay  the  fears  of 
his  wives,  therefore,  he  argues,  and  justly,  that  if  Cain  had  wilfully 
and  maliciously  killed  his  brother,  and  was  nevertheless  protected  from 
the  blood-avenger  by  the  special  providence  of  God,  he  might  confi- 
dently expect  the  same  protection,  since  the  person  whom  he  had 
slain  had  sought  and  endangered  his  life,  and  that  a  still  heavier 
punishment  than  that  which  was  threatened  to  the  avenger  of  Abel's 
death  would  fall  upon  the  man  who  should  attempt  to  molest  him.' 

Bishop  Harold  Browne  notices  the  obscure  and  enigmatical 
character  of  the  passage,  and  adds :  '  The  apparent  meaning  of  the 
words  is  this :  Amid  the  violence  of  the  times,  especially  among  the 
descendants  of  Cain,  Lamech  comforts  his  wives  with  the  assurance 
that,  with  the  aid  of  the  bronze  and  iron  instruments  now  in  his 
hands,  he  could  kill  anyone  who  injured  him  ("  I  slay,  or  would  slay, 
a  man  for  wounding  me  ") ;  and  that,  if  it  had  been  promised  to  Cain 
that  he  should  be  avenged  sevenfold,  there  was  power  in  the  hands 
of  Lamech's  family  to  avenge  seventy  and  sevenfold.  The  speech  is 
one  of  confident  boasting.  Lamech  trusts  in  his  weapons  of  brass 
and  steel  to  maintain  his  cause,  even  when  referring  to  words  used 
by  God  to  his  forefather  Cain.'  The  merit  of  this  suggestion  is  that 
it  gives  a  connection  of  the  passage  with  preceding  verses,  and  a 
reason  for  its  retention  in  the  Scripture  record. 

Inglis  gives  another  explanation,  which,  he  says,  is  not  more  con- 
jectural, but  seems  better  to  fit  the  circumstances  and  the  language  of 
the  poem.  'The  poem  has  a  connection  with  Lamech's  daughter 
Naamah.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  poem  begins  abruptly  after 
the  mention  of  her  name,  that  the  names  of  daughters  are  seldom 
given  in  Scripture  history,  and  that  we  can  generally  discover  in  the 
context  a  reason  for  it,  as  in  the  case  of  Rachel,  Dinah,  Tamar,  and 
that  we  should  expect  some  reason  for  the  place  given  here  to 
Naarrah  in  this  brief  history.  Now,  Naamah  signifies  "  The  Lovely  "; 
it  was  a  young  man  that  her  father  slew  ;  he  protests  that  he  is  guilt- 
less in  this  act,  for  if  the  death  of  a  murderer  was  to  be  avenged 
sevenfold,  his  death,  as  an  innocent  man,  should  anyone  slay  him, 
would  be  avenged  seventyfold.  And  it  is  to  his  wives  he  tells  all  this. 
What  so  probable  as  that  he  had  slain  this  youth  in  defending  his 
daughter,  or  in  avenging  her?  There  may  even  be  a  darker  tale 
behind,  a  sad  contrast  to  the  outward  glory  of  this  family  of  inventors. 


5i2      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

The  special  address  to  both  his  wives,  and  the  reference  to  Cain,  who 
shed  a  brother's  blood,  may  suggest  that  this  is  the  first  product  of 
polygamy — a  family  tragedy* 

Geikie  supports  Bishop  Browne's  suggestion :  'It  is  in  keeping 
with  the  first  mention  of  deadly  weapons  that  their  worst  use  is 
presently  boasted.  Armed  by  his  son's  invention,  Lamech,  "the 
wild  man,"  the  picture  of  a  violent  and  darkening  age,  and  the 
pitiless  hero  of  the  revengeful  of  after-days,  in  his  joy  at  his  new 
weapons,  cries  aloud  to  his  wives  in  words  which  have  come  down  to 
us  as  a  fragment  of  ancient  song.' 

Panting  after  the  Dust. 

AMOS  ii.  7  :  '  That  pant  after  the  dust  of  the  earth  on  the  head  of  the  poor.' 

Difficulty. —  We  have  no  associations  which  help  to  explain  this 
strange  figure. 

Explanation. — Lowth  thinks  the  Latin  gives  the  best  sense  of 
this  sentence  :  '  Qui  conterunt  super  pulverem  teme  capita  pauperum  ' 
— '  Who  tread  down  the  heads  of  the  poor  into  the  dust  of  the  earth  ;' 
that  is,  they  throw  them  into  the  dust,  and  then  trample  upon  them. 
The  Chaldee  paraphrase  understands  the  verb  shaaph  in  the  sense  of 
despising,  which  comes  near  the  sense  of  trampling  upon  :  the  LXX. 
render  it  by  xara^arsw,  to  tread  upon,  both  here  and  in  Psalm  Ivi.  1,2; 
Ivii.  3.  The  verb  shoph,  which  is  near  akin  to  shaaph,  plainly  signi- 
fies to  'tread  upon,'  to  'bruise'  (Gen.  iii.  15). 

The  Revised  Version  suggests  no  alteration ;  and  the  Variorum 
Reference  Bible  indicates  no  alternative  renderings.  It  may  be  an 
extravagant  way  of  stating  the  grasping,  avaricious  spirit  that  will  take 
everything  the  poor  man  has,  and  covet  the  very  dust  on  his  head. 
They  utterly  and  shamelessly  oppress  the  poor. 

Roberts  suggests  an  explanation  from  Indian  customs.  '  I  believe 
the  expression  "  dust  of  the  earth  "  alludes  to  the  lands  of  the  poor, 
of  which  they  had  been  deprived  by  the  princes  and  judges.  Nothing 
is  more  common  in  Eastern  language  than  for  a  man  to  call  his  fields 
and  gardens  his  man,  that  is,  his  dust,  his  earth.  "  That  man  has 
gnawed  away  my  dust  or  sand."  "Ah,  the  fellow!  by  degrees  he 
has  taken  away  all  that  poor  man's  earth."  "  The  cruel  wretch  !  He 
is  ever  trying  to  take  away  the  dust  of  the  earth."  In  consequence 
of  there  not  being  fences  in  the  East,  landowners  often  encroach  on 
each  other's  possessions.' 

Some  interpret  the  verse  as  expressing  the  eager  desire  of  the  rich 
to  see  the  head  of  the  poor  laid  low  and  rolled  in  the  dust.  Others 


'  WATER  OUT  OF  HIS  BUCKETS:  513 

think  the  verse  rebukes  that  greediness  after  land  which,  in  the 
prophet's  sarcastic  language,  made  men  covet  the  very  dust  which 
the  oppressed  sprinkled  on  his  head  in  token  of  mourning  (Neh. 
ix.  i ;  Lam.  ii.  10). 

Ewald  and  Keil  interpret  thus  :  '  They  long  to  see  the  poor 
reduced  to  such  distress  that  dust  is  thrown  on  their  heads  in  token 
of  grief.' 

'  Water  out   of  His  Buckets/ 

NUMBERS  xxiv.  7  :  '  He  shall  pour  the  water  out  of  his  buckets,  and  his  seed 
shall  be  in  many  waters,  and  his  kingdom  shall  be  higher  than  Agag,  and  his  king- 
dom shall  be  exalted.' 

Difficulty. — There  is  a  mixture  of  metaphors  in  this  verse  which 
is  altogether  confusing. 

Explanation. — This  is  an  illustration  of  the  limitation  of 
poetical  figures  to  the  associations,  observations,  and  knowledge  of 
the  poet.  Only  a  man  living  in  a  country  dependent  on  artificial 
irrigation  would  have  lighted  on  such  a  figure.  The  land  of  Egypt 
was  watered  by  buckets,  and  the  idea  is  presented  of  a  land  which 
would  not  be  dependent  on  man's  artificial  watering,  but  would  be 
duly  supplied  with  rain  from  heaven,  which  is  conceived  of  as  '  water 
out  of  God's  buckets.' 

Literally,  the  clause  should  be  rendered,  '  He  shall  stream  with 
water  from  his  two  buckets.'  *  Balaam's  native  soil  was  ordinarily 
irrigated  by  water  fetched  from  the  neighbouring  Euphrates,  and 
carried  in  buckets  suspended  from  the  two  ends  of  a  pole.  Water 
in  the  East  is  the  first  essential  of  all  fertility.  Thus  the  metaphor 
would  import  that  Israel  should  have  his  own  exuberant  and  unfail- 
ing channels  of  blessing  and  plenty.' 

Geikie  gives  some  interesting  descriptions  of  the  kind  of  watering 
by  buckets  from  which  Balaam  may  have  obtained  his  figure ;  the 
precise  point  of  his  application  of  the  figure  is  disputed,  but  the  hint 
given  above  is  so  simple  as  to  be  on  the  whole  satisfactory.  Writing 
of  the  neighbourhood  of  Joppa,  Geikie  says  :  '  The  harvest  is  every- 
where immense,  the  abundance  of  water  being  the  secret  of  this 
fertility.  Wherever  a  well  is  sunk  in  the  orchards,  it  is  sure  to  tap 
a  spring  at  a  very  moderate  depth.  It  seems,  in  fact,  as  if  a  great 
subterranean  stream  runs  continually  from  the  hills  towards  the  sea, 
under  the  whole  of  the  lowlands,  from  above  Joppa  to  Beersheba  in 
the  far  south ;  for  water  can  be  had  everywhere  if  a  well  be  dug. 
The  rains  which  fall  on  the  porous  strata  of  the  mountains,  or  on  the 
soft  bosom  of  the  plains,  filter  downwards  till  stopped,  not  far  below 

33 


514      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

the  surface,  by  a  bed  of  hard  limestone,  which  turns  them  off  in  a 
vast  perennial  stream,  down  its  slope,  towards  the  west.  Every 
orchard  has  thus  ample  means  of  irrigation,  effected  by  countless 
clumsy  water-wheels,  the  creaking  of  which  never  ceases.  These 
ingenious  contrivances,  though  rudely  enough  put  together,  are  at 
once  simple  and  efficient.  An  ox,  a  mule,  or  an  ass,  yoked  to  a  long 
pole  projecting  from  the  side  of  a  thick  upright  post,  and  driven 
slowly  round,  turns  this  beam,  which  carries  on  its  top  a  large 
horizontal  wheel,  with  numerous  wooden  teeth,  working  into  another 
wheel  set  up  and  down,  and  joined  by  a  long  wooden  axle  to  a  third, 
revolving,  mill-fashion,  into  and  out  of  the  well.  This  lets  down  and 
draws  up  in  turn,  as  it  goes  round,  a  series  of  pottery  jars,  or  wooden 
buckets,  fastened  to  it  at  short  intervals  by  two  thick,  endless  ropes  of 
palm-fibre  or  myrtle-twigs,  the  roughness  of  which  keeps  them  from 
slipping.  As  the  jars  or  buckets  pass  over  the  top  of  the  wheel,  full 
of  water,  they  empty  themselves  into  a  large  trough,  from  which  the 
life-giving  stream  runs  into  a  little  canal  leading  it  through  the 
orchard.  This  is  tapped  every  here  and  there  on  its  way,  and  thus 
furnishes  numberless  brooklets  to  moisten  the  roots  of  each  tree ;  so 
that  all,  in  effect,  are  planted  "  by  the  streams  of  waters."  Modifica- 
tions of  the  water-wheel  are  naturally  met  with  in  different  parts  of 
Palestine  and  Syria.  Thus,  on  the  Orontes,  huge  wheels,  varying  in 
diameter  from  fifteen  to  ninety  feet,  are  set  up  between  strong  walls 
at  the  edge  of  the  river,  so  that  in  revolving,  by  the  force  of  the 
current,  the  rim,  armed  with  a  series  of  wooden  buckets,  dips  into  the 
water  and  fills  each  in  succession,  carrying  the  whole  round  with  it 
till,  as  they  begin  to  descend,  after  passing  the  top  of  the  circle,  the 
contents  are  discharged  into  a  trough  leading  to  a  raised  tank,  from 
which  little  canals  run  off  through  the  neighbouring  gardens.  ...  In 
many  places,  however,  very  simple  wheels  are  sufficient,  when  the 
water  is  near  the  surface.  Thus,  at  the  Virgin's  Tree,  near  Cairo, 
and  in  many  parts  of  the  sea-plain  of  Palestine,  a  horizontal  cog-wheel, 
fixed  on  an  upright  shaft,  from  which  a  long  pole  projects  at  one  side, 
works  directly  into  an  upright  wheel,  hung  with  wooden  buckets,  or 
earthenware  jars,  which,  in  turn,  dip  under  the  water,  and  duly  empty 
their  contents,  as  the  wheel  revolves,  into  a  trough.  A  blindfolded 
ox  at  the  outer  end  of  the  pole  keeps  the  whole  in  motion  as  it  paces 
round  and  round.' 

A  poet  familiar  with  this  watering  of  the  land  by  buckets  would,  in 
a  very  simple  and  natural  way,  represent  the  rain  as  *  water  out  of 
God's  buckets,'  or  '  out  of  the  buckets  provided  by  God.' 


WA  TER  FROM  THE  ASS'S  JAW.  515 


Water  from  the  Ass's  Jaw. 

JUDGES  xv.  19  :  '  But  God  clave  an  hollow  place  that  was  in  the  jaw,  and  there 
came  water  thereout  ;  and  when  he  had  drunk,  his  spirit  came  again,  and  he 
revived  :  wherefore  he  called  the  name  thereof  En-hakkore,  which  is  in  Lehi  unto 
this  day. ' 

Difficulty. —  Water  out  of  an  ass's  jaw  implies  so  extraordinary, 
and  so  unnecessary,  a  miracle,  that  there  surely  must  be  some  mistake  in 
the  language. 

Explanation.  —This  subject  is  carefully  treated  by  Dr.  Abbott, 
in  his  book,  '  The  Kernel  and  the  Husk ;'  and  as  in  his  case  there  is 
full  competency  of  knowledge  and  ability  to  deal  with  such  a  difficulty, 
the  entire  passage  from  his  book  may  be  given. 

*  You  must  recollect,  and  I  think  you  ought  to  have  been  perplexed 
by,  the  astounding  incident  in  the  life  of  Samson  connected  with  the 
"ass's  jawbone."  The  hero  is  said  first  to  have  slain  some  hundreds 
of  men  with  the  jawbone  of  an  ass,  and  then  to  have  thrown  away 
the  jawbone  in  the  anguish  of  a  parching  thirst.  Upon  this  the  Lord 
is  said  (in  the  Old  Version  of  the  Bible)  to  have  opened  a  fountain 
of  water  in  the  hollow  of  the  jawbone  in  answer  to  his  cry :  and  the 
fountain  was  henceforth  named  En-hakkore,  i.e.,  the  "fountain  of 
him  that  calleth,"  because  Samson  "called  upon  the  Lord."  More- 
over, when  he  cast  away  the  jawbone,  he  is  said  to  have  called  the 
place  Ramath-lehi,  which  the  margin  (not  of  the  New  Version,  but  of 
the  Old)  interprets,  "  the  lifting  up  of  the  jawbone,"  or  "  the  casting 
away  of  the  jawbone."  Without  pausing  to  dwell  on  the  extreme 
improbability  of  the  details  of  the  story,  I  will  merely  state  the 
probable  explanation.  It  is  probable  that  the  valley  containing  the 
"  hollow  "  in  which  the  fountain  lay,  was  called,  from  the  configura- 
tion of  the  place,  "the  Ass's  Jawbone,"  before  the  occurrence  of  any 
exploit  of  Samson  in  it.  Indeed,  we  find  it  actually  called  "  Lehi," 
or  "  Jawbone,"  in  the  narrative  now  under  discussion,  just  before  the 
supposed  incident  of  the  jawbone  took  place  :  "The  Philistines  went 
up,  and  pitched  in  Judah,  and  spread  themselves  in  Lehi( Jawbone)," 
Judges  xv.  9.  This  latter  fact,  indeed,  is  not  conclusive  (as  the 
narrator,  living  long  after  the  event,  might  possibly  use  the  name  of 
the  place  handed  down  to  him,  even  in  writing  of  a  time  when  he 
believed  the  name  to  have  been  not  yet  given) ;  but  the  probability 
of  a  natural  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  name  receives  strong 
confirmation  from  a  passage  in  Strabo  (303),  who  actually  mentions 
some  other  place  (I  think  in  Peloponnesus),  called  the  "Ass's 
Jawbone."  I  need  not  say  that  Strabo  narrates  no  such  Samsonian 

33—2 


516      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

incident  to  explain  the  name,  and  that  it  was  probably  derived  (like 
Dog's  Head,  Hog's  Back,  and  many  other  such  names)  from  some 
similarity  between  the  shape  of  an  ass's  jawbone,  and  the  shape  o 
the  valley.  Moreover,  the  word  translated  "hollow,"  though  i 
might  represent  the  cavity  in  an  ass's  jawbone,  might  also  represen 
the  hollow  in  a  valley,  as  in  Zephaniah  (i.  n)  "Howl,  ye  inhabitants 
of  the  hollow"  Again,  the  name  Ramath-lchi  cannot  mean  "casting 
away  of  the  jawbone ;"  it  means  "lifting  up,"  or  "hill"  of  Lehi ;  anc 
accordingly  the  Revised  Version  translates,  "that  place  was  callec 
Ramath-lehi ;"  and  the  margin  represents  the  name  thus,  "  The  hit 
of  the  jawbone."  I  should  add  also  that  the  Revisers — instead  o 
the  Old  Version,  "clave  an  hollow  place  that  was  in  the  jaw" — give 
us  now,  "clave  the  hollow  place  that  is  in  Lehi"  You  must  see  now 
surely,  how  on  every  side  the  old  miraculous  interpretation  break; 
down  and  makes  way  for  a  natural  and  non-miraculous  explanatior 
of  the  legend.  But  we  have  still  to  explain  the  name  of  the  fountain 
said  to  have  been  given  from  the  "calling"  of  Samson.  This  i: 
easily  done.  It  appears  that  the  phrase  "  him  that  calleth,"  or  "  th< 
Caller,"  is  a  Hebrew  name  for  the  Partridge,  so  named  from  it: 
."call"  or  "cry."  The  "Fountain  of  the  Caller,"  therefore,  in  th( 
"hollow-place"  of  the  "Ass's  Jawbone,"  was  simply,  as  we  might  say 
"  Partridge  Well  in  Jawbone  Valley,  which  lay  below  Jawbon 
Hill."'. 

But  now,  many  years  after  the  champion  of  Israel  had  passec 
away,  comes  the  legendary  poet  or  historian,  who  has  to  tell  of  som< 
great  exploit  of  deliverance  wrought  by  the  hero  Samson  in  thi 
Valley  of  .the  Jawbone  of  the  Ass  by  the  side  of  the  Fountain  of  th 
Caller.  Straightway,  every  local  name  must  be  connected  with  th 
incident  that  fills  his  mind  and  the  minds  of  all  his  countrymen  wh« 
live-  in  the  neighbourhood.  And  so  'Jawbone  Valley'  becam 
so  called  Uccause.it  was  there  that  Samson  smote  the  Philistines  \vitJ 
the  '  Jawbone  of  an  ass ;'  and  '  Jawbone  Heights '  are  so  calle< 
because  on  this  spot  .Samson  '  lifted  up  '  the  jawbone  against  his  foe.c 
or- '  threw  it  away '  after  he  had  destroyed  them ;  and  '  the  Well  of  th 
Caller '  derives  not  only  its  name,  but  even  its  miraculous  existenc 
from  l  the  calling  of  Samson  upon  Jehovah.' 

Farrar  partly  sppports  this  view  :  '  The  notion  that  God  made 
miraculous  fountain  in  one  of  the  tooth-sockets  of  the  jawbone  of  a 
ass  is  one  of  the  childish  misinterpretations  with  which  Scriptur 
exegesis  is  constantly  defaced  Lehi  is  here  the  name  of  the  plac< 
and  if  the  fountain  is  said  to  have  sprung  up  in  Hammaktesh,  "  // 
tooth-socket "  (Vulg.  molar em\  that  is  only  due  to  "the  play  on  wore 


WA TER  FROM  THE  ASS'S  JA  W.  5 1 7 

lich  characterizes  the  narrative.     When  the  cliff  had  got  the  name 

"Jawbone,"  the  spring  would  naturally  be  called  "a  tooth-socket." 

ic  word  "  maktesh  "  probably  means  "  a  mortar  "  (Greek,  hohniskos  ; 

it.,  mortarioluni)  (Prov.  xxvii.  22);  and  this  name  was  transferred 

the  sockets  of  teeth.' 

Conder  thinks  he  has  identified  the  place :  '  A  little  way  north-west 

Zoreah,  seven  miles  from  Beit  Atab,  is  a  low  hill,  on  the  slope  of 

lich  are  springs,  called  'Ayun  Abu  Meharib,  or  the  "  fountains  of 

e  place  of  battles."     Close  by  is  a  little  Moslem  chapel,  dedicated 

•  Sheikh  Nedhir,  or  "the  Nazarite  chief;"  and  higher  up,  a  ruin 

ith  the  extraordinary  title  "Isma  'Allah" — "the  name  of  God." 

he  Nazarite  chief  is  probably  Samson,  whose  memory  is  so  well 

•eserved  in  this  small  district,  and  the  place  is  perhaps  connected 

ith  one  of  his  exploits.     The  "  Ism  Allah  "  is  possibly  a  corruption 

"  Esm  'a  Allah  " — "  God   heard,"  in   which   case   the   incident 

itended   will    be   the  battle   of    Ramath-lehi.      Finally,  we   were 

iformed  by  a  native  of  the  place  that  the  springs  were  sometimes 

illed  "  'Ayun  Kara,"  in  which  name  we  should  recognise  easily  the 

,n  hakkore,  or  "fountain  of  the  crier."' 

Iron  and  Brass  Shoes. 

DEUTERONOMY  xxxiii.  25  :  '  Thy  shoes  shall  be  iron  and  brass  ;  and  as  thy  days, 
•  shall  thy  strength  be.' 

Difficulty. — The  figure  of  metal  shoes  is  a  strange  one.  Perhaps 
ihoes '  does  not  fittingly  represent  the  Hebrew  term. 

Explanation. — The  Revised  Version  gives  '  Thy  bars  shall  be 
on  and  brass  ' :  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  what  can  be  meant  by  bars, 
>  applied  to  the  locality  of  a  tribe.  Possibly  metals,  more  especially 
on  and  copper,  were  found  in  this  territory ;  but  there  is  no  evidence 
f  Asher's  being  occupied  in  mining  operations.  It  is  better  to  see 
i  this  expression  a  striking,  almost  an  extravagant,  Eastern  figure  of 
peech.  Put  in  simple  form,  it  means  that  the  strength  and  firm- 
ess  of  Asher  should  be  as  if  he  were  shod  with  iron  and  brass.  The 
!haldee  paraphrasts  understand  the  sentence  figuratively,  '  Thou 
halt  be  strong  and  bright  as  iron  and  brass.' 

Bishop  Wordsworth  examines  the  figures  carefully :  '  Or  thy  bars 
nd  strongholds  shall  be  iron  and  brass.  The  word  rendered  shoe 
mineat]  occurs  only  here.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  mean 

bar,  or  bolt.  (So  Arabic,  Onkelos,  Kimchi,  R.  Solomon,  Gesenius, 
nd  Keil.)  The  root  is  naal,  to  fasten  with  a  bolt ;  hence  naal,  a 
hoe,  fastened  by  a  latchet.  But  there  does  not  seem  to  be  sufficient 


5i8     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

reason  for  abandoning  the  translation  shoes,  which  is  authorized  by 
Sept.,  Vulg.,  Syriac  :  and  there  is  something  expressive  in  this  figure, 
as  indicating  the  force  with  which  Asher  would  tread  down  his 
enemies.  Besides,  Asher  had  (it  is  probable)  mines  of  iron  and 
copper,  and  Misrephoth  Maim,  which  seems  to  be  in  Asher,  is  said 
by  the  Rabbis  to  have  been  famous  for  its  smelting  furnaces,  and  to 
have  derived  its  name  from  them.' 

Dean  Stanley  says  :  '  Asher  was  to  be  "  blessed  with  children," 
"acceptable  to  his  brethren,"  dipping  his  foot  in  the  "oil"  of  his 
olive-groves,  shod  with  "  the  iron  and  brass  "  (copper)  of  Lebanon/ 
And  he  observes  that  iron  is  found  in  Lebanon  ;  copper  is  not  now 
found,  but  its  frequent  mention  in  connection  with  the  Tyrians 
justifies  the  allusion. 

Geikie  intimates  that  Asher  failed  to  reach,  or  to  maintain,  the 
destiny  prophesied  for  it.  With  Naphtali  Asher  occupied  the  high 
lands  stretching  from  the  Jordan  to  the  Phoenician  plain.  The  por- 
tion of  Asher  reaching  from  Carmel  northwards.  But  Asher  could  not, 
any  more  than  Ephraim,  hold  his  own  against  the  chariots  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  was  soon  contented  to  live  among  them,  rejoicing  in 
the  possession  of  some  of  the  richest  land  in  Palestine.  .  .  .  Sinking 
into  purveyors  for  the  Phoenician  cities,  they  soon  lost  their  high 
tone  until  national  spirit  had  so  faded  away,  that  when  Zebulon  and 
Naphtali  'jeoparded  their  lives  to  the  death,'  in  the  struggle  against 
Sisera,  Asher  cravenly  sought  its  own  interests  in  the  havens  and 
villages  of  its  heathen  allies. 

The   Undying  Worm   and  Unquenched  Fire. 

ISAIAH  Ixvi.  24 :  '  For  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be 
quenched  ;  and  they  shall  be  an  abhoring  unto  all  flesh.' 

Question. — Can  the  associations  on  which  this  poetical  figure  is 
based  be  explained  ? 

Answer. —  Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  *  It  cannot  be  by  chance  that 
the  Evangelical  prophet  concludes  his  glorious  prophecy  with  this 
terrible  note  of  warning.  Either  he  was  divinely  directed  thus  to 
terminate  his  teaching,  or  he  felt  the  need  that  there  was  of  his 
emphasizing  all  the  many  warnings  dispersed  through  his  book,  by  a 
final,  never-to-be-forgotten  picture.  The  undying  worm,  and  the 
quenchless  fire — images  introduced  by  him — became  appropriated 
thenceforth  to  the  final  condition  of  impenitent  sinners  (Judith  xvi.  1 7  : 
Ecclus.  vii.  17),  and  were  even  adopted  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  the 
same  connection  (Mark  ix.).  The  incongruity  of  the  two  images  shows 


UNDYING   WORM  AND  UNQUENCHED  FIRE.     519 

hat  they  are  not  to  be  understood  literally ;  but  both  alike  imply 
:verlastirig  continuance,  and  are  incompatible  with  either  of  the  two 
nodern  heresies  of  universalism  or  annihilationism.' 

In  criticism  of  this  last  remark  it  may  be  said  that  both  the  worm 
md  the  fire  can  only  continue  so  long  as  they  have  suitable  matter 
ofeed  upon.  Without  food  neither  worm  nor  flame  can  endure. 

Cheyne,  in  his  work  on  *  Isaiah,'  discusses  this  sentence :  '  By 
:he  inconsistency  of  the  description,  the  prophet  clearly  warns  us  not 
:o  understand  it  literally.  The  Egyptian  authors  of  the  "  Book  of 
:he  Dead  "  would  have  equally  deprecated  a  literal  interpretation  of 
:he  torments  of  the  condemned.  The  eschatology  of  the  Bible  is 
symbolic  ;  the  prophet,  like  the  other  men  of  God,  speaks  in  figures. 
His  symbols  are  borrowed  partly  from  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  which 
had  formerly  been  the  scene  of  the  burnt  sacrifices  to  Moloch,  and 
afterwards  became  the  receptacle  of  the  filth  of  Jerusalem,  and 
partly  from  the  popular  imaginations  respecting  the  soul.  We  must 
be  on  our  guard,  however,  against  supposing  that  the  kernel  of  his 
symbols  is  a  mere  abstraction.  This  would  be  high  treason  against 
his  Semitic  origin  and  his  prophetical  calling.  There  is  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  material  torments  form  a  very  definite  part  of  his  eschato- 
logy. In  one  essential  point,  however,  our  prophet  is  distinguished 
from  non-prophetical  writers,  viz.:  his  self-restraint  in  referring  to  the 
unseen  world.  .  .  .  Did  the  prophet  merely  mean  "that  nothing 
should  put  the  fire  out,  while  any  portion  of  the  carcases  remained  to 
be  devoured — that  it  should  be  unquenchable  until  it  had  done  its 
work,  and  all  was  entirely  consumed  ?"  And,  in  the  application  of  the 
figure  to  the  soul,  that  pangs  of  conscience  should  continue  to  afflict 
the  guilty  ones  until  they  were  purified  thereby  ?  This,  at  any  rate, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  interpretation  of  the  early  readers  of 
the  prophecy.  The  proverbial  use  of  the  fire  and  the  worm  in 
Sirach  vii.  17  ;  Judith  xvi.  17,  would  hardly  have  arisen  if  the  Jewish 
people  had  given  the  phrases  so  mild  a  meaning.  But  the  theory 
mentioned  may,  I  think,  be  refuted  out  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  itself, 
where  we  read  (xxxiv.  10)  respecting  the  fire  with  which  guilty  Edom 
is  threatened,  that  it  shall  be  quenchless,  and  that  its  smoke  shall  go 
up  for  ever,  so  that  "  none  shall  pass  through  "  Edom  "  for  ever  and 
ever."  There  is  no  arriere  pensee  here;  the  everlastingness  spoken 
of  is  absolute,  and  without  qualification.  The  phrase  "perpetual 
burnings  "  (xxxiii.  14)  has  quite  another  reference/ 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  gives  the  following  note  :  {  Ordinarily, 
the  "  worm "  feeds  on  the  disorganized  body,  and  then  dies ;  the 
"  fire "  consumes  its  fuel,  and  goes  out.  But  here  is  a  strange 


520      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

mystery  of  suffering — a  worm  not  dying,  a  fire  not  becoming  extinct 
— a  remorseful  memory  of  past  guilt,  an  all-penetrating  sense  of 
Divine  justice.' 

Dean  Plumptre  has  a  valuable  note  on  the  passage  as  used  by  our 
Lord  (Mark  ix.  44) :  '  The  words  are  taken  almost  literatim  from  the 
closing  verse  of  Isaiah,  where  they  appear  as  part  of  the  description  of 
the  triumph  of  Jehovah.  The  true  worshippers  should  serve  in  His 
Temple  continually,  and  they  should  go  forth  and  see  the  carcases  of 
the  transgressors,  "  for  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their 
fire  be  quenched,  and  they  shall  be  an  abhorrence  to  all  flesh."  The 
scenery  is,  like  that  of  Isa.  Ixiii.  1-6,  drawn  from  the  slaughter  of 
earthly  battles,  and  the  prophet  exults  in  vision  over  the  putrid 
carcases  and  the  blazing  fires  that  consume  them,  and  thinks  of  that 
scene  as  perpetuated  throughout  eternity.  The  imagery  was  thus 
already  familiar,  and  it  coalesced  naturally  with  the  ideas  of  Gehenna. 
Possibly  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  as  the  great  cloaca  of  Jerusalem, 
receiving  its  solid  as  well  as  its  fluid  sewage,  with  putrid  offal  and 
blazing  fires  consuming  them,  had  become  in  this  way  a  visible  type 
of  the  unseen  Gehenna ;  but  the  authorities  are  hardly  definite 
enough  to  warrant  the  positive  statement  that  it  presented  such  a 
scene.  The  interpretation  of  the  symbols  (for  a  literal  acceptance  of 
the  words  is  obviously  out  of  the  question)  is  not  far  to  seek.  Well- 
nigh  all  Christian  thinkers  have  seen  in  the  gnawing  worm  the 
anguish  of  an  endless  remorse,  the  memory  of  past  sins.  Fire  re- 
tains its  wonted  force  as  the  expression  of  the  righteousness  of  God 
(Heb.  xii.  29)  manifesting  itself  to  the  consciousness  of  the  sinner  in 
all  its  awfulness,  purifying  where  there  is  any  desire,  and  therefore 
capacity,  for  purification,  but  never  altering  its  essential  character, 
even  as  the  fire  "  never  can  be  quenched."  So  much  the  words 
declare  distinctly,  as  the  law  of  righteous  retribution.  They  do  not 
absolutely  exclude  the  thought  that  the  fire  may  consume  or  destroy 
that  which  it  cannot  purify ;  still  less  do  they  affirm  that  it  will.' 

The  «  Days  '  of  Creation. 

GENESIS  i.  5  :  '  And  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day.' 

Question. — Is  the  term  *  day '  to  be  taken  in  a  poetical \  or  in  a 
natural,  sense  ? 

Answer. — Mr.  W.  E.  Gladstone  can  neither  be  regarded  as  a 
trained  exegete  nor  as  a  trained  theologian,  but  in  dealing  with  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  he  has  skilfully  expressed  the  conclusions 
which  most  reasonable  and  fair-minded  men  are  prepared  to  accept. 


THE  'DAYS'  OF  CREATION.  521 

The  following  passage  from  his  article  in  Good  Words  bears  relation 
to  the  '  days '  into  which  the  Creative  action  is  divided. 

'  I  submit  that  the  days  of  creation  are  neither  the  solar  days  of 
twenty-four  hours,  nor  are  they  the  geological  periods  which  the 
geologist  himself  is  compelled  popularly,  and  in  a  manner  utterly 
remote  from  precision,  to  describe  as  millions  upon  millions  of  years. 
To  use  such  language  as  this  is  simply  to  tell  us  that  we  have  no 
means  of  forming  a  determinate  idea  upon  the  subject  of  the  geologic 
periods.  I  set  aside  both  these  interpretations,  as  I  do  not  think  the 
Mosaist  intended  to  convey  an  idea  like  the  first,  which  was  false,  or 
like  the  second,  which  would  have  been  barren  and  unmeaning. 
Unmeaning,  and  even  confusing  in  the  highest  degree;  for  large 
statements  in  figures  are  well  known  to  be  utterly  beyond  comprehen- 
sion for  man  at  an  early  intellectual  stage;  and  I  have  myself,  I 
think,  shown  that,  even  among  the  Achaian  or  Homeric  Greeks,  the 
limits  of  numerical  comprehension  were  extremely  narrow,  and  all 
large  numbers  were  used,  so  to  speak,  at  a  venture.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  days  of  the  Mosaist  are  more  properly  to  be  described  as 

CHAPTERS   IN    THE    HISTORY    OF   THE    CREATION.       That  is   tO  Say,  the 

purpose  of  the  writer  in  speaking  of  the  days  was  the  same  as  the 
purpose  of  the  historian  is  when  he  divides  his  work  into  chapters. 
His  object  is  to  give  clear  and  sound  instruction.  So  that  he  can  do 
this,  and  in  order  that  he  may  do  it,  the  periods  of  time  assigned  to 
each  chapter  are  longer  or  shorter  according  as  the  one  or  the  other 
may  minister  to  better  comprehension  of  his  subject  by  his  readers. 
Further,  in  point  of  chronology,  his  chapters  often  overlap.  He  finds 
it  needful,  always  keeping  his  end  in  view,  to  pursue  some  narrative 
to  its  close,  and  then,  stepping  backwards,  to  take  up  some  other 
series  of  facts,  although  their  exordium  dated  at  a  period  of  time 
which  he  has  already  traversed.  The  resources  of  the  literary  art, 
aided  for  the  last  four  centuries  by  printing,  enable  the  modern 
writer  to  confront  more  easily  these  difficulties  of  arrangement,  and 
so  to  present  the  material  to  his  reader's  eye,  in  text  or  margin,  as  to 
place  the  texture  of  his  chronology  in  harmony  with  the  texture  of  the 
action  he  has  to  relate.  The  Mosaist,  in  his  endeavour  to  expound 
the  orderly  development  of  the  visible  world,  had  no  such  resources. 
His  expedient  was  to  lay  hold  on  that  which  to  the  mind  of  his  time 
was  the  best  example  of  complete  and  orderly  division.  This  was 
the  day,  an  idea  at  once  simple,  definite,  and  familiar.  As  one  day 
is  divided  from  another  not  by  any  change  visible  to  the  eye  at  a 
given  moment,  yet  effectually  by  the  broad  chasm  of  the  intervening 
night,  so  were  the  stages  of  the  creative  work  several  and  distinct, 


522      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

even  if,  like  the  lapse  of  time,  they  were  without  breach  of  continuity. 
Each  had  its  work,  each  had  the  beginning  and  the  completion  of 
that  work,  even  as  the  day  is  begun  by  its  morning,  and  completed 
and  concluded  by  its  evening. 

'  And  now  to  sum  up.  In  order  that  the  narrative  might  be  intelli- 
gible, it  was  useful  to  subdivide  the  work.  This  could  most  effectively 
be  done  by  subdividing  it  into  periods  of  time.  And  further,  it  was 
well  to  choose  that  circumscription  or  period  of  time  which  is  the 
most  definite.  Of  these  the  day  is  clearly  the  best,  as  compared  with 
the  month  or  the  year :  first,  because  of  its  small  and  familiar 
compass ;  and,  secondly,  because  of  the  strong  and  marked  division 
which  separates  one  day  from  another. 

'  Hence,  we  may  reasonably  argue,  it  is  that  not  here  only,  but 
throughout  the  Scripture,  and  even  down  to  the  present  time  in 
familiar  human  speech,  the  day  is  figuratively  used  to  describe  periods 
of  time,  perfectly  undefined  as  such,  but  defined,  for  practical  pur- 
poses, by  the  lives  or  events  to  which  reference  is  made.  And  if  it 
be  said  there  was  a  danger  of  its  being  misunderstood  in  this 
particular  case,  the  answer  is  that  such  danger  of  misapprehension 
attaches  in  various  degrees  to  all  use  of  figurative  language;  but 
figurative  language  is  still  used.  And  with  reason,  because  the 
mischiefs  arising  from  such  danger  are  rare  and  trivial,  in  comparison 
with  the  force  and  clearness  which  it  lends  to  truth  on  its  passage 
through  a  clouded  atmosphere  of  folly,  indifference,  and  prejudice, 
into  the  mind  of  man.  In  this  particular  case  the  danger  and  incon- 
venience are  at  their  minimum,  the  benefit  at  its  zenith  ;  for  no  moral 
mischief  ensues  because  some  have  supposed  the  days  of  the  creation 
to  be  pure  solar  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  while  the  benefit  has  been 
that  the  grand  conception  of  orderly  development,  and  ascent  from 
chaos  to  man,  became  among  the  Hebrew  people  a  universal  and 
familiar  truth,  of  which  other  races  appear  to  have  lost  sight.' 

Dean  Payne  Smith  describes  a  creative  day  as  not  a  period  of 
twenty-four  hours,  but  an  tzon,  or  period  of  indefinite  duration ;  and 
he  tells  us  that  among  the  Chaldaeans  a  cosmic  day  was  a  period  of 
43,200  years,  being  the  equivalent  of  the  cycle  of  the  procession  of 
the  equinoxes. 

Kurtz  suggests  that  the  revelation  of  the  manner  of  creation  was 
made  in  a  succession  of  representations  or  pictures,  displayed  before 
the  mental  vision  of  the  tranced  seer. 

The  explanations  offered  may  be  briefly  summarized.  There  is  the 
literal  interpretation^  which  sees  in  the  'days'  twenty -four  hours. 
Some  regard  the  '  days '  as  periods.  Some  treat  the  account  of  the 


THE  FIRE  OF  GOD.  523 

creation  as  a  series  of  dramatic  scenes  presented  in  vision,  each  scene 
answering  to  a  'day.'  And  the  strange  notion  has  been  suggested 
that  the  work  of  the  six  days  only  refers  to  the  fitting  up  of  that 
particular  portion  of  the  earth,  which  was  the  first  abode  of  man. 


The  Fire  of  God. 

JOB  i.  16  :  '  While  he  was  yet  speaking,  there  came  also  another,  and  said,  The 
fire  of  God  is  fallen  from  heaven,  and  hath  burned  up  the  sheep,  and  the  servants, 
and  consumed  them  ;  and  I  only  am  escaped  to  tell  thee.' 

Question. — May  we  identify  this  poetical  description  as  referring 
to  the  lightning  ? 

Answer. — Probably  we  may.     Lightning  has  done  all  that  this 

*  fire  of  God '  is  represented  as  doing.     It   strikes  dead.     It  sets 
buildings  alight.     And  yet  the  reading  of  Holy  Scripture  leaves  on  us 
the  impression  of  something  unusual  in  these  manifestations  of  the 

*  fire  of  God.'    This  report  of  the  servant  of  Job  can  hardly  be  ex- 
plained by  the  consequences  of  lightning-flash  :  it  better  suits  a  blast 
of  the  hot  scorching  wind     But  if  we  regard  the  Book  of  Job  as  a 
poetical  creation,  we  are  relieved  of  the  necessity  for  finding  facts  of 
history  precisely  answering  its  descriptions. 

A  simple  explanation  has  been  offered.  The  term  '  Fire  of  God ' 
may  be  only  a  figure  for  a  *  great  destructive  fire,'  according  to  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  which  calls  great  trees  '  trees  of  God,'  and  great 
mountains  '  hills  of  God.'  Then  we  can  suppose  that  some  calamity 
of  an  ordinary  character  is  referred  to.  It  would  not  be  difficult  for 
those  who  are  familiar  with  prairie  fires  to  imagine  the  disaster  which 
had  overtaken  the  sheep. 

Other  suggestions  have  been  made.  Some  think  the  sultry, 
poisonous  wind  of  the  desert,  the  Samoom  (Samum),  may  be  meant. 
It  suddenly  destroys  man  and  beast.  It  is  indicated  by  certain 
atmospheric  phenomena,  appearing  first  of  a  yellow  colour,  which 
changes  to  a  leaden  hue,  and  spreads  through  the  atmosphere,  so 
that  the  sun  when  at  the  brightest  becomes  a  dark  red. 

Delitzsch  thinks  a  rain  of  fire  or  brimstone  such  as  fell  on  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  may  be  meant ;  but  we  have  no  historical  records  of 
such  rains,  nor  any  experiences  to  help  us  in  conceiving  such.  Most 
writers  prefer  to  identify  the  term  as  poetical  for  'lightning.'  The 
Speaker's  Commentary  says,  '  This  is  a  new  and  more  terrible  calamity. 
Incursions  of  robbers  must  have  entered  into  the  calculations  of  a 
rich  chieftain  in  the  Hauran,  but  a  storm  extending  over  the  vast 
tracts  occupied  by  seven  thousand  sheep,  and  destroying  them, 


524      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

together  with  their  guards,  would  scarcely  be  attributed  to  merely 
natural  causes,  certainly  not  in  that  age  by  God-fearing  men.' 

The  particular  expression  is  also  found  in  connection  with  Elijah. 
(See  i  Kings  xviii.  24 ;  2  Kings  i.  12.) 

'  None  shut  up,  or  left.' 

2  KINGS  xiv.  26  :  '  For  the  Lord  saw  the  affliction  of  Israel,  that  it  was  very 
bitter  :  for  there  was  not  any  shut  up,  nor  any  left,  nor  any  helper  for  Israel.' 

Question. —  What  could  have  been  the  cojidition  of  the  people  which 
is  thus  described  ? 

Answer. — We  must  get  the  precise  turn  of  the  expression  from 
the  Revised  Version.  '  For  there  was  none  shut  up,  nor  left  at  large, 
neither  was  there  any  helper  for  Israel.'  From  i  Kings  xiv.  10  we 
gather  that  the  words  '  shut  up  and  left '  were  an  alliterative  phrase, 
meaning  'men  of  all  sorts.'  It  may  mean,  'whether  a  man  be  young, 
and  so  under  wardship,  or  older,  and  free  to  go  about  as  he  pleases. 
Hence  the  expression  amounts  to  "  young  and  old."  '  There  was  no 
one,  great  or  small,  young  or  old,  to  whom  they  could  look  for 
aid. 

In  a  special  note  on  Deut.  xxxii.  36,  where  this  expression  first 
appears,  the  Speaker's  Commentary  says  :  '  The  phrase  is  proverbial, 
and  based  upon  a  paronomasia  (31Tltt  "iltftf).  Its  general  sense  is 
clear.  It  means,  '  all  men  of  all  sorts  ' ;  and  its  literal  force  is  cor- 
rectly given  in  the  Authorised  Version,  though  the  word  translated 
'left '  might  perhaps  as  well  be  rendered  'set  free.'  Its  original  and 
proper  significance  has,  however,  been  uncertain  from  very  early 
times.  The  best  explanation  of  it  is  probably  that  of  De  Dieu,  which 
has  analogies  in  the  Arabic,  and  is  followed  by  Dathe,  Baumgarten, 
Delitzsch,  Keil,  Knobel,  etc.,  who  regard  it  as  originally  meaning 
"  married  and  single  "  (cf.  the  German  ledig).  Others  (Rosenmiiller, 
Gesenius,  De  Wette,  etc.)  suggest  "  bond  and  free,"  or  "  confined 
and  at  large " ;  others  (Kimchi  and  some  Jewish  authorities) 
'  precious '  (and  so  "  shut  up  and  guarded "),  and  "  vile  "  (and  so 
neglected) ;  others  (Fiirst,  etc.),  "  He  who  is  restrained  and  he  who 
is  his  own  Master,"  which  is  substantially  identical  with  "  he 
who  is  not  of  full  age,  and  he  who  is  so,  and  therefore  is  indepen- 
dent"' 

This  passage  provides  a  striking  illustration  of  a  large  number  of 
Bible  expressions  which  are  exceedingly  difficult  for  us  to  under- 
stand, because  they  are  colloquial  sayings,  people's  proverbs,  which 
depend  for  their  point  on  the  precision  with  which  they  are  repro- 


SIN  WITH  A  CART-ROPE.  525 

duced  in  another  language,  and  the  degree  in  which  we  can  recover 
the  associations  which  once  made  them  effective.  These  people's 
proverbs  turn,  oftentimes,  on  the  double  meaning  attached  to  words, 
and  that  double  meaning  may  be  quite  beyond  our  reach,  because 
one  of  the  meanings  may  be  a  local  and  temporary,  and  not  a  dic- 
tionary meaning.  Great  confusion  may  be  made  by  missing  the  par- 
ticular connotation  given  to  a  term  in  a  proverb  at  some  definite 
period  of  a  nation's  history,  or  in  some  limited  part  of  a  country. 
The  familiar  saying  in  Isaiah,  '  Precept  must  be  upon  precept ;  line 
upon  line,'  is  an  effective  illustration.  It  really  is  an  imitation  of  the 
thickened  speech  of  drunken  revellers  in  the  days  of  Isaiah  ;  but  this 
does  not  appear  in  our  English  translation,  and  consequently  we  fix 
new  ideas  of  our  own  to  Isaiah's  words. 


Sin  with  a  Cart- Rope. 

ISAIAH  v.  18  :  '  Woe  unto  them  that  draw  iniquity  with  cords  of  vanity,  and  sin 
as  it  were  with  a  cart-rope.' 

Question. —  What  characteristic  feature  of  sin  does  this  figure 
indicate  ? 

Answer. — There  are  no  associations  of  modern  life  that  help  to 
make  this  figure  intelligible ;  and  one  is  tempted  to  think  that  the 
precise  force  of  the  original  word  can  hardly  have  been  caught ;  but 
the  Revised  Version  suggests  no  alteration,  and  there  are  no  various 
renderings ;  so  we  are  left  to  discover  what  explanations  have  been 
given  by  Bible  writers. 

Henderson  criticises  other  explanations,  and  gives  his  own.  '  The 
idea  of  drawing  out  or  continuing  in  the  practice  of  sin,  and  thereby 
accumulating  it,  like  a  rope-maker,  who  continually  adds  to  his 
materials,  first  suggested  by  Houbigant,  and  approved  by  Lowth,  is 
quite  forced ;  having  no  other  ground  than  the  simple  occurrence  of 
the  terms  cords  and  ropes ;  which  are  manifestly  spoken  of  as  imple- 
ments, by  the  use  of  which  the  action  was  performed,  and  not  them- 
selves the  subjects  of  the  operation.  Besides,  it  is  at  variance  with 
the  following  context.  The  meaning  is,  that  the  persons  described 
were  not  satisfied  with  ordinary  modes  of  provoking  the  Deity,  and 
the  consequent  ordinary  approach  of  His  vengeance,  but,  as  it  were, 
yoked  themselves  in  the  harness  of  iniquity,  and  putting  forth  all 
their  strength,  drew  down  upon  themselves  with  accelerated  speed  the 
load  of  punishment  which  their  sins  deserved.  The  verse  would 
better  read,  "  Woe  to  them  that  draw  calamity  with  cords  of  inquity, 
and  punishment  as  with  the  ropes  of  a  cart." '  Drawing  punishment 


526      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

down  as  with  a  cart-rope  is  altogether  more  intelligible  than  drawing 
sin. 

Dean  Plumptre  suggests  other  associations.  'This  phrase  is 
boldly  figurative.  Evil-doers  are  thought  of  as  harnessing  themselves 
to  the  chariot  of  sin.  The  "  cords  of  vanity  " — i.e.,  of  emptiness,  or 
ungodliness — are  the  habits  by  which  they  are  thus  bound.  The 
"cart-ropes,"  thicker  and  stronger  than  the  "cords,"  represent  the 
extreme  stage,  when  such  habits  become  irresistibly  dominant.  Pro- 
bably the  words  may  point  to  some  idolatrous  procession,  in  which 
the  chariot  of  Baal  or  Ashtaroth  was  thus  drawn  by  their  wor- 
shippers like  that  of  Demeter  or  Cybele  in  Greece,  or  Juggernath  in 
India/ 

As  showing  how  difficult  it  is  to  be  satisfied  with  any  explanation 
of  striking  and  unusual  Eastern  figures,  the  criticism  of  J.  A. 
Alexander  may  be  given  :  '  This  verse  contains  the  third  woe,  having 
reference  to  presumptuous  sinners  who  defy  God's  judgments.  They 
are  here  represented  not  as  drawn  away  by  sin  (Jas.  i.  14),  but  as 
laboriously  drawing  it  to  them  by  soliciting  temptation,  drawing  it 
out  by  obstinate  persistency  in  evil  and  contempt  of  divine  theaten- 
ings.  Woe  to  the  drawers  of  iniquity  (those  drawing,  those  who  draw 
it)  with  cords  of  vanity  and  sin  (a  parallel  expression  to  iniquity)  as 
(or  as  with)  a  cart-rope,  i.e.,  a  strong  rope,  implying  difficulty  and 
exertion.  The  interpretation  which  supposes  iniquity  and  sin  to 
mean  calamity  and  punishment  (Menochius,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Hende- 
werk,  Henderson),  although  it  seems  to  make  the  sentence  clearer, 
impairs  its  strength,  and  takes  the  words  in  an  unusual  and  doubtful 
sense.  Knobel  objects  that  men  cannot  be  said  to  draw  sin  with 
cords  of  sin.  But  even  this  figure  is  perfectly  consistent  both  with 
reason  and  experience.  Or  vanity  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
falsehood  or  sophistical  reasoning  by  which  men  persuade  themselves 
to  sin  (Calv.  Vitr.  Cler.).  The  Targum,  followed  by  Jarchi,  supposes 
an  antithesis  between  the  beginnings  of  sin  and  its  later  stages,  slight 
cords  and  cart-ropes.  But  this  confounds  the  sin  itself  with  the 
instrument  by  which  they  draw  it ;  and  the  same  objection  lies  against 
the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  Versions,  which  make  drawing  out,  or  pro- 
tracting, the  primary  idea,  and  also  against  Houbigant's  and  Lowth's 
interpretation,  which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  process  of  rope- 
making.  Luther's  idea  that  the  verse  relates  to  combination  among 
wicked  men,  "  who  bind  themselves  together "  to  do  mischief,  is  at 
variance  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb.  The  true  interpretation 
of  the  verse,  which  supposes  the  act  described  to  be  that  of 
laboriously  drawing  sin  to  one's  self,  perhaps  with  the  accessory  idea 


GOD  PRESSED  AS  A  LOADED  CART.  527 

of  drawing  it  out  by  perseverance,  is  substantially  given  by  Kimchi, 
Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  Umbreit.' 

Cheyne  explains  thus:  'In  their  "emptiness"  of  true  religion, 
these  men  allow  themselves  to  be  yoked  to  sin  like  beasts  of  burden. 
The. same  figure  is  found  in  the  Rig  Veda  (Max  Miiller's  translation) 
— "  Undo  the  rope  of  sin."  ' 

The  Speaker's  Commentary  reads,  'As  if  they  had  yoked  them- 
selves, like  bullocks,  to  drag  onward  their  piles  of  ungodliness.' 


God  Pressed   as  a    Loaded   Cart. 

AMOS  ii.  13  :  '  Behold  I  am  pressed  under  you,  as  a  cart  is  pressed  that  is  full 
of  sheaves.' 

Question. —  What  idea  of  God  is  thus  presented1} 

Answer. —  Van  Lennep  tells  us  that  in  many  portions  of  Asia 
Minor,  the  sheaves  are  piled  into  a  rude  cart,  upon  which  they  are 
kept  from  falling  by  a  wicker-work  about  four  feet  high.  These  carts, 
or  arabas,  are  probably  similar  to  those  used  by  the  Hebrews,  and 
drawn  by  a  pair  of  oxen. 

Describing  harvesting  operations,  Geikie  says  :  '  The  bundles  of 
cut  grain  are  carried  on  asses,  or  sometimes  on  camels,  to  the  open-air 
threshing-floor,  near  the  village  ;  one  of  the  huge  bundles,  nearly  as 
large  as  the  camel  itself,  being  hung  on  each  side  of  the  patient  beast, 
in  a  rough  netting  of  rope,  as  he  kneels  to  receive  them.  Rising  and 
bearing  them  off,  he  once  more  kneels  at  the  threshing-floor,  to  have 
them  removed,  returning  forthwith  to  the  reapers  to  repeat  the  same 
round.'  According  to  Geikie,  there  are  no  wheeled  vehicles  now 
in  Palestine,  though  there  were  in  antiquity.  And  Ayre  says,  that '  at 
present  wheel-carriages  are  all  but  unknown  in  Syria  ;  the  only  carts 
known  in  Western  Asia  have  two  wheels  of  solid  wood,  such  as  may 
be  seen  in  Spain.' 

The  passage  is  a  difficult  one,  because  the  grammatical  form 
obscures  the  point.  Bishop  Wordsworth  gives  a  suggestive  explana- 
tion :  '  The  propriety  of  the  simile  of  the  cart,  pressed  down  and 
groaning  with  its  load  of  ripe  sheaves,  consists  further  in  this,  that  the 
cart  bears  them  to  the  threshing-floor,  and  shoots  them  down  there  to 
be  threshed.  In  like  manner,  Israel,  wearying  God  with  the  weight 
of  their  sins,  will  be  cast  down  by  Him  on  the  threshing-floor,  to  be 
crushed  like  sheaves  by  the  sharp  threshing  instruments  of  Divine 
judgment.'  St.  Jerome  says  :  '  As  a  cart  loaded  heavily  with  corn  or 
hay,  creaks  and  groans  with  the  weight,  so  I,  overburdened  by  your 


528      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

sins,  utter  my  voice  and  say,  "The  flight  shall  perish  from  the 
swift." ' 

Some  take  the  passage  as  correctly  rendered  in  the  Authorised 
Version  :  '  The  difficulty  of  the  passage  consists  chiefly  in  the  form 
of  the  verb  here  employed  by  the  prophet,  which  cannot  be  adequately 
rendered  by  the  passive,  "  I  am  pressed."  Its  meaning  may  be  con- 
veyed by  "  I  feel  pressed  or  straitened  "  :  "  Behold  I,  even  I,  feel  the 
pressure  of  your  sins,  as  the  cart  that  is  full  of  sheaves  (full  as  it  can 
hold,  is  the  meaning  of  the  idiom)  feels  its  heavy  load." ' 

The  marginal  rendering  suggests  a  different  idea  :  '  I  will  press  your 
place,  as  a  cart  full  of  sheaves  presseth.'  But  this  is  open  to  '  more 
than  one  objection.  It  violates  the  Hebrew  idiom,  and  gives  a  turn 
to  the  passage  which  ill-agrees  with  the  image  employed.  The 
pressure  of  a  heavily-laden  cart  on  the  ground  can  hardly  represent 
the  crushing  Q{  a  people.  The  punishment,  too,  seems  to  be  described 
in  the  words  that  follow.' 

Job's   Perfectness. 

JOB  i.  8  :  '  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Satan,  Hast  thou  considered  my  servant  Job. 
that  there  is  none  like  him  in  the  earth,  a  perfect  and  an  upright  man,  one  that 
feareth  God,  and  escheweth  evil?' 

Difficulty. — The  term  'perfect]  as  we  understand  it,  cannd 
properly  be  applied  to  any  human  being. 

Explanation. — Much  confusion  has  been  caused  by  our  failing 
to  see  that  the  word  '  perfect '  as  used  in  the  Scripture  is  a  figurative 
and  poetical  term,  and  not  strictly  descriptive  and  logical.  A  doctrine 
of '  perfectionism '  would  never  have  been  created  if  the  suggestive 
character  of  this  word  had  been  properly  estimated.  As  used  in  the 
Old  Testament,  it  represents  the  simple,  single-hearted  man,  who  hae 
but  one  ruling  purpose  ;  who  means  to  do  right,  whenever  he  can  set 
what  is  right.  The  perfect  man  is  the  man  who  does  not  wilfully  o; 
consciously  commit  sin  :  but  the  idea  of  an  absolute  and  entire  free 
dom  from  all  taint  or  peril  of  sin  never  enters  into  the  Old  Testa 
ment  term.  In  such  a  sense  no  individual  is  presented  to  us  in  th< 
ancient  histories. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  word  '  perfect '  sometimes  is  the  sam< 
as  '  complete,' '  entire,'  with  no  part  or  faculty  lacking,  or  undevelopec 
But  as  our  Lord  used  the  word,  it  retains  its  Old  Testament  idea  o 
'simple,  sincere,  single-willed,  resolutely  set  on  the  good,  and  th< 
right.' 

In  the  description  of  Job  four  characteristics  are  mentioned  :  ' Pei 
feet,'  as  opposed  to  'perverse,'  'self-willed.'  '  Upright]  fair,  honoui 


JOB'S  PERFECTNESS.  529 

able,  straightforward,  in  all  his  dealings  with  men.  *  One  that 
feareth  GodJ  and  therefore  offers  Him  the  worship,  and  the  service, 
that  are  His  due.  '  Escheweth  evil]  finds  everything  wilful  and  dis- 
obedient actually  distasteful  to  him.  He  had  such  an  inward-abiding 
sense  of  God's  holiness,  that  all  evil — and  the  essence  of  evil  is  wilful- 
ness — was  abhorrent  to  him. 

The  precise  use  of  the  term  in  this  Book  of  Job  is  indicated  by  Dr. 
A.  B.  Davidson  :    '  The  term  "  perfect  "  means  properly  "  complete," 
without  defect.   It  does  not  imply  that  the  man  was  sinless,  for  Job  never 
puts  forward  any  such  pretension '  (and  we  should  not  believe  him  if 
he  did),  '  but  that  he  was  a  righteous  man,  and  free  from  specific  sins 
such  as  were  held  to  bring  down  the  chastisement  of  heaven.     That 
he  was  so  is  the  very  foundation  of  his  trial  and  the  first  principle  of 
the  book.     Job's  "  perfection "  is  affirmed  in  heaven  (ch.  i.  8  ;  ii. 
3)  ;  it  is  understood  by  his  wife  :  "  Dost  thou  still  hold  fast  thy  per- 
fection ?"  (ii.  9) ;  and  it  is  persistently  claimed  for  himself  by  Job,  not 
only  in  moments  of  excitement  when  stung  by  the  insinuations  of 
his  friends  :  "  I  am  perfect  "  (ix.  21),  but  also  when  the  heat  of  the 
conflict  is  over,  and  under  the  most  solemn  oaths  :  "  As  God  liveth, 
who  hath  taken  away  my  right  ...  I  will  not  remove  my  perfection 
from  me  ;  my  righteousness  I  hold  fast "  (xxvii.  2,  5,  6).     The  word 
occurs  again,  xxxi.  6,  and  in  another  form  (xii.  4),  "  The  just,  perfect 
man  is  laughed  to  scorn."     Even  the  three  friends  admit  Job's  per- 
fectness  in  general,  although  they  are  under  the  impression  that  he 
must  have  been  guilty  of  some  serious  offences  to  account  for  his 
calamities,  and  they  urge  it  upon  Job  as  a  ground  of  confidence  for 
his  ultimate  recovery  :  "  Is  not  thy  hope  the  perfectness  of  thy  ways  ?" 
(iv.  6) ;  and  again  :  "  God  will  not  cast  away  a  perfect  man  "  (viii.  20). 
One  of  the  objects  the  writer  of  the  book  had  in  view  was  to  teach 
that  sufferings  may  fall  on  men  for  reasons  unconnected  with  any  sin 
Dn  their  own  part ;  and  using  the  history  of  Job  for  this  purpose,  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  lay  emphasis  in  all  parts  of  the  book 
upon  Job's  perfection.     The  term  "  perfect "  is  used  of  Noah  in  the 
same  sense  :  Noah,  a  just  man,  was  perfect  in  his  generation  ;  that  is, 
tie  was  righteous  and  exempt  from  the  sins  of  his  contemporaries ' 
[Gen.  vi.  9). 

It  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  the  Hebrew  word  here  used  for  '  perfect ' 
[tarn)  cannot  mean  '  without  any  human  failings  '  that  it  is  applied  to 
[acob  (Gen.  xxv.  27),  who  was  certainly  not  without  his  frailties. 

c  Perfect '  may  be  said  to  include  completeness  in  all  the  parts  of 
noral  character  :  sincerity ',  which  is  rather  a  matter  of  purpose  than  of 
performance,  but  is  the  foundation  of  a  gracious  character;  and 

34 


530      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

blamelessness,  or  moral  integrity.  A  man  may  be  blameless  though 
not  sinless ;  he  may  be  blameless  as  judged  by  a  human  standard, 
not  sinless  when  judged  by  the  Divine  standard.  In  a  sense  care- 
fully limited,  perfection  may  be  said  to  belong  to  saints  both  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  but  the  holiness  of  believers  on  earth  can 
only  be  partial  and  progressive.  Christ  is  the  only  absolutely 
righteous  and  perfect  One. 

The   Picture  of  Old  Age. 

ECCLESIASTES  xii.  I  :  '  While  the  evil  days  come  not,  nor  the  years  draw  nigh, 
when  thou  shalt  say,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  them,'  etc. 

Question. — Should  this  picture  be  regarded  as  suitable  only  to 
the  miserable  old  age  of  a  worn-out  sensualist  ? 

Answer.— The  old  age  that  follows  on  a  sober  and  healthy  life 
is  not  fitly  described  in  this  passage.  The  point  of  the  passage  is  the 
misery  of  the  old  man  who  has  nourished  sensual  desires  and  passions, 
until  they  have  become  masterful,  and  yet  has  no  longer  any  bodily 
power  to  indulge  them  :  and  there  is  no  misery  to  be  compared  with 
that  which  such  an  old  man  knows.  Set  a  fair  description  of  an  old 
Christian's  experience  over  against  this  description  of  the  sensualist's 
old  age,  and  the  contrast  will  be  seen  to  be  most  striking. 

Dr.  James  Hamilton  takes  this  view  of  the  passage  :  '  A  dissipated 
youth  is  sure  to  be  followed  by  a  cross  and  joyless  old  age.  During 
the  years  of  his  ungodliness,  Solomon  had  been  a  fast  liver,  and,  most 
likely,  he  now  felt  creeping  over  him  the  jejune  and  dreary  feelings 
which  foretell  a  premature  decline.  No  dew  of  youth  survived  to 
create  a  green  old  age,  and  having  forestalled  the  reserve  of  strength 
and  spirits,  he  had  failed  withal  to  lay  up  against  this  time  a  good 
foundation  of  faithful  friends  and  pleasant  memories.  The  portrait 
is  general ;  but  an  old  worldling  seems  to  have  supplied  the 
original.' 

Dean  Plumptre  says  of  this  chapter :  *  The  description  which 
follows  forms  in  some  respects  the  most  difficult  of  all  the  enigmas 
of  the  book.  That  it  represents  the  decay  of  old  age,  or  of  disease 
anticipating  age,  ending  at  last  in  death,  lies  beyond  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt ;  but  the  figurative  language  in  which  that  decay  is  re- 
presented abounds  in  allusive  references  which  were  at  the  time  full 
of  meaning  for  those  that  had  ears  to  hear,  but  which  now  present 
riddles  which  it  is  not  easy  to  solve.  Briefly,  the  two  chief  lines  on 
which  commentators  have  travelled  have  been  (i)  that  which  starts, 
as  in  the  comment  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  from  the  idea  of  the 


THE  PICTURE  OF  OLD  AGE.  531 

approach  of  death  as  the  on-coming  of  a  storm;  (2)  that  which 
assumes  that  we  have,  as  it  were,  a  diagnosis  of  the  physical  phe- 
nomena of  old  age  and  its  infirmities,  and  loses  itself  in  discussions  as 
to  what  bodily  organ,  heart,  brain,  liver,  gall-duct,  or  the  like,  is 
specially  in  the  author's  mind.  It  will  be  seen,  as  the  imagery  comes 
before  us  in  detail,  how  far  either  solution  is  satisfactory,  how  far  they 
;admit  of  being  combined,  or  what  other,  if  any,  presents  itself  with 
.stronger  claims  on  our  attention.  The  "  evil  days  "  are  those  which 
.are  painted  in  the  verses  that  follow,  not  necessarily  the  special  forms 
.of  evil  that  come  as  a  punishment  of  sensual  sins,  but  the  inevitable 
•accompaniment  of  declining  years,  or  disease.  There  is  the  implied 
warning  that  unless  a  man  has  remembered  his  Creator  in  his  youth, 
,it  will  not  then  be  easy  to  remember  Him  as  for  the  first  time  in 
the  "evil  days"  of  age  or  infirmity.  In  those  days  it  will  be  em- 
phatically true  that  there  will  be  no  pleasure  in  them.' 

Francis  Jacox  has  the  following  passage :  '  Graphic,  after  the 
-.manner  of  the  man,  is  Dr.  South's  picture  of  the  old  age  that  comes 
to  wait  upon  what  he  calls  a  "great  and  worshipful  sinner,"  who  for 
many  years  together  has  had  the  reputation  of  eating  well  and  doing 
ill.  "  It  comes  (as  it  ought  to  do  to  a  person  of  such  quality)  attended 
with  a  long  train  and  retinue  of  rheurns,  coughs,  catarrhs,  and 
dropsies,  together  with  many  painful  girds  and  achings,  which  are  at 
least  called  the  gout.  How  does  such  a  one  go  about,  or  is  carried 
rather,  with  his  body  bending  inward,  his  head  shaking,  and  his  eyes 
always  watering  (instead  of  weeping)  for  the  sins  of  his  ill-spent  youth. 
In  a  word,  old  age  seizes  upon  such  a  person  like  fire  upon  a  rotten 
house ;  it  was  rotten  before,  and  must  have  fallen  of  itself,  so  that  it 
is  no  more  but  one  ruin  preventing  another."  Virtue,  we  are  ad- 
monished, is  a  friend  and  a  help  to  Nature,  but  it  is  vice  and  luxury 
that  destroy  it,  and  the  diseases  of  intemperance  are  the  natural 
products  of  the  sins  of  intemperance.  "  Chastity  makes  no  work  for 
a  chirurgeon,  nor  ever  ends  in  rottenness  of  bones."  Whereas,  sin  is 
the  fruitful  parent  of  distempers,  and  ill  lives  occasion  good  phy- 
sicians.' 

'  You  must  become  an  old  man  betimes,  if  you  would  be  an  old 
man  long,'  runs  the  Latin  adage ,  implying  that  you  must  put  an 
early  stop  on  the  irregularities  of  young  blood  if  you  care  to  attain 
length  of  days. 

According  to  Lowth,  '  by  the  "  keepers  of  the  house  "  the  sacred 
penman  describes  the  hands  and  the  arms,  which  in  old  age 
"tremble";  and  by  the  "strong  men"  he  represents  the  "legs" 
which  "bow  themselves."  "The  grinders"  are  the  teeth,  which 

34—2 


532      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

"fail  because  they  are  few,"  whilst  <$ those  that  look  out  at  the 
windows  "  mean  the  eyes,  which  are  "  darkened."  "  The  doors  shut 
in  the  street "  indicate  the  lips,  necessarily  closed  by  the  loss  of  the 
teeth,  which  causes  "  the  sound  of  the  grinding  to  be  low."  The 
hoary  head  is  depicted  by  the  "flourishing  of  the  almond-tree,"  whose 
blossoms  are  white  and  very  abundant.  "  The  silver  cord "  is 
generally  thought  to  figure  the  spinal  marrow,  "the  golden  bowl"  the 
skull,  which  contains  the  brain  ;  "the  pitcher  broken  at  the  fountain  " 
indicates  that  the  functions  of  the  heart  have  ceased ;  and  "  the 
wheel  broken  at  the  cistern"  the  action  of  the  lungs  being  at  an 
end.' 

For  the  scheme  by  which  the  figures  are  explained  as  the  on- 
coming of  a  storm,  see  S.  Cox's  l  Quest  of  the  Chief  Good.' 

Jotham's   Parable. 

JUDGES  ix.  7  :  'And  when  they  told  it  to  Jotham,  he  went  and  stood  in  the  top 
of  Mount  Gerizim,  and  lifted  up  his  voice,  and  cried,  and  said  unto  them,  Hearken 
unto  me,  ye  men  of  Shechem,  that  God  may  hearken  unto  you.3 

Question. —  What  differences  can  be  observed  between  this  parable 
and  the  parables  of  the  New  Testament? 

Answer. — Dr.  Douglas  says  :  '  Though  this  (parable)  is  the  name 
so  long  applied  (to  Jotham's  speech)  that  it  may  be  difficult  now  to 
effect  a  change,  it  is  manifestly  incorrect.  A  parable  has  to  do  with 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  workings  of  grace ;  and  though  it  uses 
natural  objects  for  illustration,  it  never  transgresses  the  limits  of 
actual  occurrences.  But  this  is  a  fable,  in  which  there  is  no  hesita- 
tion about  making  trees  and  animals  speak,  and  which  has  for  its 
purpose  only  moral  lessons  in  the  sphere  of  natural  life.  Yet  it  is 
true  that  a  fable  in  the  mouth  of  a  godly  Israelite  would  present  some 
points  of  contact  with  a  parable,  especially  as  Abimelech's  ambition 
invaded  the  province  of  the  true  though  invisible  king  of  Israel.  This 
is  the  most  ancient  fable  known  :  and  its  beauty  and  completeness 
have  made  it  very  familiar  to  all  readers  of  the  Bible,  for  which 
reason  there  is  little  need  of  comment,  if  we  recollect  the  fundamental 
•  truth,  that  Israel  had  as  little  need  of  a  king  as  had  the  trees.' 

Dean  Stanley  says :  *  In  the  parable  of  Jotham — the  earliest  known 
fable — we  fall  upon  the  first  instance  of  that  peculiar  kind  of  com- 
position, in  which  the  Eastern  and  Western  imagination  coincide. 
The  fables  of  y£sop  are  alike  Grecian  and  Indian.  The  fable  of 
Jotham  might,  as  far  as  its  spirit  goes,  have  been  spoken  in  the 
market-place  of  Athens  or  of  Rome  as  appropriately  as  on  the  heights 
of  Gerizim/ 


JOTHAM'S  PARABLE.  533 

Farrar  tells  us  that  f  fables  are  extremely  popular  in  the  East, 
where  they  are  often  current,  under  the  name  of  the  slave-philosopher 
Lokman,  the  counterpart  of  the  Greek  ./Esop.  But  though  there  are 
many  apologues  and  parables  in  Scripture,  there  is  only  one  other 
fable,  and  that  is  one  closely  akin  to  this  (2  Kings  xiv.  9).  St.  Paul, 
however,  in  i  Cor.  xii.  14-19,  evidently  refers  to  the  ancient  fable  of 
Menenius  Agrippa,  about  the  belly  and  the  members  (Livy,  ii.  30). 
A  fable  is  a  fanciful  story,  to  inculcate  prudential  morality.  In  the 
Bible  "  trees  "  seem  to  be  more  favourite  dramatis  persona  than  the 
talking  birds  and  beasts  of  other  nations.' 

Dr.  Paulus  Casse/,  in  a  note  in  '  Lange's  Commentary,'  brings  out 
some  fresh  and  interesting  points  :  '  Fable  and  so-called  apologue  are 
of  Oriental,  non-Israelitish,  as  also  non-Grecian,  origin.  They  spring 
from  a  pantheism  in  which  trees  and  animals  furnished  symbols  for 
expressing  the  popular  ideas.  Although  rooted  in  the  religious  vivi- 
fication  of  nature,  their  employment  was,  nevertheless,  brought  to 
maturity  by  the  pressure  of  social  necessities.  In  the  East  fable  and 
tale  were  always  the  weapons  of  mind  against  violence  and  tyranny. 
They  furnished  the  people  with  individual  consolation  against  general 
misery.  In  their  original  appearance  among  the  Greeks  also,  they 
fail  not  to  exhibit  this  character.  In  the  same  way,  Jotham  speaks 
to  the  tyrants  of  Shechem  in  this  popular  language,  which  all  under- 
stand. He  does  not  speak  like  a  prophet,  for  he  is  none,  and  Baal 
has  stopped  the  ears  of  his  auditors.  He  does  not  even  speak  of  the 
power  and  mighty  deeds  of  Jehovah,  from  whom  his  own  name  is 
derived.  He  speaks  of  Elohim,  and  His  retributions — of  the  Deity 
in  the  general  sense  in  which  the  heathen  also  acknowledge  him. 
He  speaks  altogether  in  their  language,  popularly,  with  popular 
wisdom.  But  what  a  difference  between  the  moral  strength  which 
justifies  Jotham  to  put  forth  his  parable,  and  (for  instance)  the 
motives  of  the  Greek  Archilochus.  There  we  hear  'the  wounded 
vanity  of  a  rejected  suitor;  here,  one  solitary  voice  of  indignation 
and  truth  against  the  tyrant  and  murderer.  By  this  moral  motive, 
Jotham  elevates  the  parable  to  the  level  of  the  Divine  word,  and 
furnishes  the  first  illustration  of  how  a  popular  form  of  discourse,  the 
offspring  of  directly  opposite  principles,  could  be  employed  for  moral 
purposes,  and  (in  the  parables  of  Christ)  become  a  medium  for  the 
highest  doctrines  and  mysteries.' 

Trench  points  out  the  two  leading  distinctions  between  a  fable  and 
i  parable,  from  which  we  gather  that  the  distinction  lies  rather  in  their 
spheres  than  in  their  literary  characteristics :  '  The  parable  is  con- 
structed to  set  forth  a  truth  spiritual  and  heavenly ;  this  the  fable, 


534      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

with  all  its  value,  is  not.  It  is  essentially  of  the  earth,  and  never  lifts 
itself  above  the  earth.  It  never  has  a  higher  aim  than  to  inculcate 
maxims  of  prudential  morality,  industry,  caution,  foresight ;  and  these 
it  will  sometimes  recommend  even  at  the  expense  of  the  higher  self- 
forgetting  virtues.  The  fable  just  reaches  that  pitch  of  morality 
which  the  world  will  understand  and  approve  .  .  .  the  parable  is 
deeply  in  earnest,  allowing  itself  therefore  no  jesting  nor  raillery  at 
the  weaknesses,  the  follies,  or  the  crimes  of  men.  .  .  .  There  is 
another  point  of  difference  between  the  parable  and  the  fable. 
While  it  can  never  be  said  that  the  fabulist  is  regardless  of  truth, 
since  it  is  neither  his  intention  to  deceive,  when  he  attributes 
language'  and  discourse  of  reason  to  trees,  birds,  and  beasts,  nor  is 
anyone  deceived  by  him ;  yet  the  severer  reverence  for  truth,  which 
is  habitual  to  the  higher  moral  teacher,  will  not  allow  him  to  indulge 
even  in  this  sporting  with  the  truth,  this  temporary  suspension  of  its 
laws,  though  upon  agreement,  or,  at  least,  with  tacit  understanding. 
In  his  mind,  the  creation  of  God,  as  it  came  from  the  Creator's  hands, 
is  too  perfect,  has  too  much  of  reverence  owing  to  it,  to  be  represented 
otherwise  than  as  it  really  is.  The  great  Teacher  by  parables,  there- 
fore, allowed  Himself  in  no  transgression  of  the  established  laws  of 
Nature — in  nothing  marvellous,  or  anomalous ;  He  presents  to  us  no 
speaking  trees,  nor  reasoning  beasts,  and  we  should  be  at  once  con- 
scious of  an  unfitness  in  His  so-doing.' 


'  Concerning  the  Vapour.' 

JOB  xxxvi.  33  :  '  The  cattle  also  concerning  the  vapour.' 

Difficulty. — This  must  be  an  imperfect  translation,  for  it  conveys 
no  meaning  to  the  reader  as  it  stands. 

Explanation. — There  is  perhaps  no  other  case  in  the  Bible  in 
which  the  English  translation  is  so  absolutely  unintelligible  to  the 
ordinary  reader ;  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  more  striking 
instance  of  the  need  for  a  Revised  Version.  The  full  passage,  as 
given  in  the  Authorised  and  in  the  Revised  Versions,  will  impress 
the  value  of  the  service  which  the  Revisers  have  rendered  us. 

Authorised  Version. — '  With  clouds  he  covereth  the  light ;  anc 
commandeth  it  not  to  shine  by  the  cloud  that  cometh  betwixt.  Th< 
noise  thereof  showeth  concerning  it,  the  cattle  also  concerning  thf 
vapour.'  Marg.,  '  that  which  cometh  up.' 

Revised  Version. — { He  covereth  his  hands  with  the  lightning 
(marg.,  'light');  'and  giveth  it  a  charge  that  it  strike  the  mark 


'  CONCERNING  THE   VAPOUR:  535 

(marg.,  '  against  the  assailant ').  '  The  noise  thereof  telleth  concern- 
ing him  '  (marg.,  '  it '),  '  the  cattle  also  concerning  the  storm  that 
cometh  up '  (marg.,  « him  that  cometh  up  '). 

But  even  the  Revised  Version  needs  some  explanation,  for  the 
poetical  figures  are  very  abrupt  and  involved. 

Delitzsch  translates  as  poetry  : 

'  Both  hands  he  covereth  over  with  light, 
And  directeth  it  as  one  who  hitteth  the  mark. 
His  noise  announceth  Him, 
The  cattle  even  that  He  is  approaching.' 

Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  also  translates  as  poetry  : 

'  He  covereth  over  His  hands  with  light, 
And  giveth  it  commandment  against  the  adversary  ; 
His  thundering  telleth  concerning  Him  ; 
Unto  the  cattle,  even  concerning  Him  that  cometh  up.' 

The  subject  is  evidently  God's  manifestation  of  Himself  in  a 
thunder-storm.  The  lightning  is  held  in  His  hands,  and  it  illuminates 
the  hands  that  hold  it.  God  directeth  the  aim  of  the  lightning  as  the 
soldier  his  arrows.  The  thunder  that  follows  the  lightning  is  a  voice 
for  God,  declaring  His  majesty  and  power.  And  even  the  cattle  are 
affected  by  the  coming  storm,  and  are  poetically  thought  of  as,  in 
their  fear,  learning  something  concerning  God.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  the  last  clause  of  verse  33  should  be  referred  to  the  coming 
storm,  or  to  God  as  coming  up  in  the  storm. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  explains  thus  :  '  The  cattle  also  give  notice  of 
His  rising  up.  Even  the  irrational  animals,  the  herds  and  flocks,  feel 
the  presence  of  God  in  the  elements,  and  give  presages  of  the  coming 
storm,  when  He  rises  up  to  show  His  majesty  and  power ;  how  much 
more  oughtest  thou,  who  art  endued  with  reason,  to  recognise  the 
working  of  God  in  the  universe  ?  Probably,  while  Elihu  was  utter- 
ing these  words,  there  were  symptoms  visible  of  the  coming  storm, 
and  of  the  sweeping  forward  of  the  whirlwind,  from  which  the  Lord 
spake  to  Job  (see  xxxviii.  i),  and  perhaps  even  the  cattle  in  the 
neighbouring  fields,  cowering  beneath  the  tempest,  gave  signs  of  the 
approach  of  their  Creator.' 

The  note  in  Speaker's  Commentary  gives  a  different  turn  to  the 
passage  by  omitting  the  reference  to  the  '  cattle.'  *  These  two  verses 
are  exceeding  obscure,  and  the  meaning  of  nearly  every  word  is  dis- 
puted. The  following  interpretation,  on  the  whole,  seems  to  adhere 
most  closely  to  the  text,  and  to  be  best  adapted  to  the  context :  '  He 
clothed  His  hands  with  light '  (sc.  lightning),  '  and  giveth  it  command 
whom  it  shall  reach  ;  the  sound  thereof '  (the  crash  that  follows  the 


536      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

lightning)  'announces  concerning  Him  fierceness  of  wrath  against 
unrighteousness.'  This  rendering  requires  no  change  in  the  letters, 
and  but  a  slight  change  in  the  punctuation.' 

Dr.  Stanley  Leathes  says  of  verse  33  :  'This  verse  is  extremely 
difficult,  and  the  sense  very  uncertain.  We  may  translate  the  first 
clause,  "  The  noise  thereof"  (i.e.,  the  crash  of  the  thunder)  "  declareth 
concerning  Him  " ;  it  is  His  voice,  and  speaks  of  Him  ;  but  the  last 
clause  is  almost  unintelligible.  The  words  as  they  stand  mean,  or 
may  mean,  cattle  even  concerning  a  goer-up  ;  but  what  this  means,  who 
shall  say  ?  Possibly,  the  thunder-crash  telleth  the  cattle  even  concerning 
Him  who  gotth  up — i.e.,  even  the  cattle  show,  by  their  terror,  that  the 
thunder  speaketh  to  them  of  God,  who  goeth  up  on  high.  Some 
render  the  last  clause,  "The  cattle  also  concerning  Him  as  He 
riseth  up";  or,  "The  cattle  also  concerning  the  rising  storm."  There 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  general  meaning  is  that  all  nature 
participateth  in  the  terror  caused  by  the  thunder,  which  is  regarded 
as  the  audible  voice  of  God ;  but  what  the  exact  expression  of  this 
general  thought  may  be  it  is  very  hard  to  say.' 

Delitzsch  says :  'It  is  to  be  interpreted :  His  thunder-clap 
announces  Him  (who  is  about  to  reveal  Himself  as  a  merciful  judge), 
the  cattle  even  (announce)  Him  at  His  first  rising  up,  since  at  the 
approach  of  a  storm  they  herd  together  affrighted  and  seek  shelter. 
The  speakers  are  Arabian,  and  the  scene  is  laid  in  the  country. 
Elihu  also  refers  to  the  animal  world  in  ch.  xxxv.  n.  This  feature 
of  the  picture,  therefore,  cannot  be  surprising.' 

The  <  Eloi '  of  David. 

PSALM  xxii.  i  :  'My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  Why  art 
thou  so  far  from  helping  me,  and  from  the  words  of  my  roaring  ?' 

Difficulty. — This  may  be  either  an  anticipative  representation  of 
our  Redeemer's  agony,  or  an  actual  expression  of  the  Psalmisfs 
distress. 

Explanation. — Probably  most  readers  of  the  Psalm  will  feel 
that  the  language  is  too  strained  and  intense  to  be  wholly  fitted  to 
any  ordinary  human  experience  ;  but  it  is  the  genius  of  the  poet  to 
idealize  human  experiences,  and  present  them  in  what  men,  in  their 
calmer  moods,  may  think  exaggerated  terms.  How  far  the  Hebrew 
poets  must  be  regarded  as  having  also  prophetic  insight,  and  antici- 
pating the  experiences  of  Messiah,  will  be  decided  by  the  school  of 
thought  to  which  we  belong.  The  tendency  of  some  minds  is  to 
exaggerate  the  supernatural  element  in  the  Bible,  and  find  it  every- 


THE  ' ELOr  OF  DA  VID.  537 

where,  and  in  every  conceivable  connection.  The  tendency  of  other 
minds  is  to  a  strict  limitation  of  the  supernatural  element.  If  God 
be  fully  recognised  as  working  in  the  natural,  little  can  be  gained  by 
making  for  Him  supernatural  situations.  It  may  be  fairly  urged 
that,  making  due  allowance  for  the  poetical  form  of  this  passage,  it 
expresses  a  time  of  great  mental  distress ;  and  because  the  words 
were  suitable,  they  were  used  by  our  Lord  as  fittingly  uttering  the 
mental  distress  accompanying  His  last  bodily  agonies.  The  words 
suited  the  Psalmist,  but  they  even  better  suit  our  Lord. 

Great  differences  of  opinion  are  found  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
Psalm.  Some  argue  that  it  is  David's ;  others  ascribe  it  to  Jeremiah ; 
others  to  one  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon.  Some  urge  that  the  nation 
Israel  is  in  it  personified ;  and  some  declare  that  as  it  neither  suits 
David,  nor  Jeremiah,  nor  anyone  else,  it  must  be  entirely  prophetic, 
and  refer  to  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  and  to  Him  alone. 

Dean  Perowne  thinks  'the  Psalm  was  composed  by  one  of  the 
exiles  during  the  Babylonish  captivity.  And  though  the  feelings  and 
expressions  are  clearly  individual,  not  national,  yet  they  are  the 
feelings  and  expressions  of  one  who  suffers  not  merely  as  an  indi- 
vidual, but,  so  to  speak,  in  a  representative  character.  Naturally, 
one  who  was  made  the  scoff  and  derision  of  the  heathen,  and  the 
object  of  their  worst  cruelty,  would  cling  to  the  thought  that  he 
suffered  not  only  as  an  individual,  but  as  one  of  the  chosen  of  God. 
The  bitterness  of  his  grief  was  that  God — so  it  seemed — had  forsaken 
him  ;  the  joy  born  out  of  that  grief  was  that  he  should  yet  praise  God 
for  His  saving  health  in  the  midst  of  his  brethren  (delivered  like 
himself  out  of  the  hands  of  their  oppressors),  and  that  thus,  and  as 
a  consequence  of  this  deliverance,  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations 
should  worship  before  the  Lord.' 

Aglerfs  note  in  Ellicotfs  Commentary  is  perhaps  the  most  satisfac- 
tory and  suggestive,  and  best  meets  the  difficulty  above  indicated. 
*  The  fact  that  Jesus  uttered  from  His  Cross  the  words  of  bitter  woe 
that  begin  this  poem,  have  given,  and  must  ever  give  it,  a  special 
interest  and  importance.  It  was  natural  that  Christian  sentiment 
should  fasten  lovingly  on  it,  and  almost  claim  it,  not  only  as  a  record 
of  suffering  typical  of  our  Lord's  suffering,  but  as  actually  in  every 
detail  prophetic  of  Him.  But  the  signs  of  a  true  Messianic  character 
of  prophecy  are  to  be  looked  for  in  moral  likeness,  not  in  accidental 
resemblances  of  situation,  or  coincidences  of  language,  and  in  this 
sense  Ps.  xxii.  must  ever  be  considered  Messianic. 

'Nothing  in  David's  recorded  life  bears  out  the  title.  The  identifi- 
cation of  the  sufferer  with  Jeremiah,  though  much  more  probable,  is 


538      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

excluded  by  the  joyous  and  hopeful  tone  of  the  conclusion  of  the 
poem.  But  is  it  an  individual  sufferer  at  all,  and  not  rather  suffering 
Israel,  whose  profound  misery  in  the  first  part,  and  whose  happy 
restoration  in  the  second,  the  poet  depicts  ?  If  such  an  interpretation 
suits  the  description  of  the  suffering  servant  of  Jehovah  in  Isaiah  lii., 
liii.,  as  many  critics  think  (cf.  Isa.  xlix.  3),  it  suggests  itself  for  this 
Psalm,  which  has  so  many  points  of  analogy  with  that  passage.  The 
herds  of  wild  beasts  that  surround  the  sufferer  are  more  appropriate 
as  a  figure  of  hostile  tribes  than  of  personal  enemies,  and  the  vivid 
picture  of  suffering  in  verses  14  and  15  are  not  less  applicable  to  the 
material  condition  of  an  oppressed  nation  than  the  description  in 
Isa.  i.  5,  6,  is  to  their  moral  condition.  Such  a  view  certainly  suits 
the  conclusion  of  the  Psalm  better  than  any  other.  .  .  .  Still,  the 
strong  personal  tone  in  the  opening  of  the  Psalm  suggests  that  this 
prophet  was  himself  closely  identified  with  the  sufferings  he  depicts, 
and  shared  them  not  only  in  sympathy  but  in  reality,  and  the  great 
consensus  of  opinion  looks  for  the  author  among  the  sufferers  in  the 
exile,  and  probably  among  the  Levites.' 

The  natural  expression  of  mental  distress  takes  form  as  a  question. 
This  question  of  the  text  is  not  any  asking  with  desire  or  expectation 
of  answer.  It  is  no  more  than  an  uttering  aloud  of  the  anguish  of 
the  soul  which  creates  doubt  and  fear.  Delitzsch  points  out  that  this 
disconsolate  cry  of  anguish  '  is  neither  an  expression  of  impatience  nor 
despair,  but  of  alienation  and  yearning.  The  sufferer  feels  himself 
rejected  of  God;  the  feeling  of  Divine  wrath  has  completely  en- 
shrouded him ;  and  still  he  knows  himself  to  be  joined  to  God  in 
fear  and  love ;  his  present  condition  belies  the  real  nature  of  his 
relationship  to  God ;  and  it  is  just  this  contradiction  that  urges  him 
to  the  plaintive  question  which  comes  up  from  the  lowest  depths : 
Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  But  in  spite  of  this  feeling  of  desertion 
by  God,  the  bond  of  love  is  not  torn  asunder ;  the  sufferer  calls  God 
{ My  God]  and,  urged  on  by  the  loving  desire  that  God  again  would 
grant  him  to  feel  this  love,  he  calls  Him,  '  My  God,  my  God.'  That 
complaining  question,  '  Why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ?'  is  not  without 
example  even  elsewhere  in  the  Psalms.  See  Ixxxviii.  15  ;  cf.  Isa. 
xlix.  14. 


THE   CHAMPION  FIGURE  OF  MESSIAH.         539 
The  Champion  Figure  of  Messiah. 

ISAIAH  Ixiii.  i  :  '  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments 
from  Bozrah  ?  this  that  is  glorious  in  his  apparel,  travelling  in  the  greatness  of 
his  strength?  I  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save.' 

Question. — Can  this  be  exclusively  applied  to  Messiah,  or  must  we 
see  a  first  reference  to  some  ordinarily  historical  person  ? 

Answer. — Much  depends  on  the  principles  of  interpretation 
which  we  adopt.  If  the  Bible  is  treated  as  a  book  whose  language  is 
to  suggest  Christian  thoughts  and  associations,  allusions  to  the 
Messiah  may  easily  be  found  anywhere  and  everywhere.  If  the 
Bible  is  regarded  as  a  book  of  history  and  literature,  having  its  direct 
references  to  the  times  in  which  the  books  were  written,  or  the 
prophecies  uttered,  then  it  will  be  felt  that  this  passage  must  be 
greatly  forced  if  it  is  to  be  made  into  a  description  of  the  Messiah, 
or  the  Messiah's  mission.  No  one  would  for  a  moment  question  the 
strict  orthodoxy  of  Henderson,  and  yet  he  is  constrained  by  simple 
honesty  to  say :  '  In  prophetic  vision  a  triumphant  conqueror  is  dis- 
covered, arrayed  in  military  attire,  and  returning  from  Idumaea — the 
scene  of  battle  and  victory.  To  excite  attention,  the  question  is  put, 
"  Who  can  he  be  ?"  To  which  he  himself  replies,  in  language  which 
leaves  us  at  no  loss  to  doubt,  that  he  is  the  Divine  Logos,  or  Speaker, 
who,  from  the  beginning,  revealed  the  Will  of  God  to  men ;  and  as 
the  Angel,  or  Messenger,  of  the  Divine  Presence,  acted  as  the  Pro- 
tector and  Saviour  of  ancient  Israel  (see  verse  9).  This  interpreta- 
tion, which  is  that  adopted  by  most  commentators,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  alone  satisfies  the  claims  of  the  passage ;  but  nothing  can 
be  more  preposterous,  or  more  directly  at  variance  with  the  entire 
spirit  of  it,  than  the  application  which  some  have  made  of  it  to  the 
victory  which  he  obtained  upon  the  cross.' 

Matthew  Arnold  states  the  connection  of  the  passage  very  plainly  : 
'  So  sure  are  God's  purposes,  that  even  if  mortal  instruments  (such  as 
Cyrus)  fail,  God  Himself  will  do  the  work  upon  the  enemies  of  Israel. 
The  prophet  selects  Edom  as  a  kindred  and  neighbour  people  of 
Israel,  and  yet  their  ancient  and  specially  bitter  enemy  (comp. 
chap,  xxxiv. ;  see  also  Obadiah,  and  Ezek.  xxxv.  5  ;  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7), 
who  had  assisted  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
In  a  kind  of  short  drama,  of  sublime  grandeur,  the  prophet  exhibits 
God  Himself  as  returning  from  executing  vengeance  upon  Edom.' 

Cheyne  says :  '  Modern  critics  in  general,  both  Roman  Catholic 
(see  Rohling  and  Neteler)  and  Protestant,  deny,  at  any  rate,  that  the 
primary  reference  of  the  prophecy  is  to  the  personal  Servant  of 


540     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Jehovah.  Calvin  long  ago  put  this  view  with  a  clearness  and  a  force 
which  leave  nothing  to  be  desired  ;  he  calls  the  traditional  Christian 
interpretation  a  violent  wresting  of  the  prophecy,  which  simply 
declares,  in  figurative  terms,  that  God  will  interpose  for  His  people. 
The  only  doubt  is  whether  Edom  is  to  be  taken  literally  or  symboli- 
cally ;  whether,  that  is,  the  calamity  described  means  only  the  general 
judgment  upon  the  world,  or  a  special  visitation  of  Edom  ;  or  whether, 
again,  we  may  combine  these  views.' 

Canon  Rawlinson  takes  much  the  same  view  as  Cheyne.  '  Isaiah 
had  already,  in  the  first  portion  of  his  prophecy,  announced  "  a  great 
slaughter  in  the  land  of  Idumsea,"  as  resolved  on  in  the  counsels  of 
God  (ch.  xxxiv.  5-10).  He  now  recurs  to  the  subject,  and  represents 
Jehovah  as  a  warrior  with  blood-stained  garments,  fresh  from  the 
field  of  battle  in  Edom,  where  he  has  trodden  down  his  foes,  and 
taken  a  fierce  vengeance  on  them.  The  Idumseans  probably  repre- 
sent the  world-power ;  and  the  "  day  of  vengeance  "  may  be  one  still 
future,  in  which  the  enemies  of  God  will  feel  the  weight  of  His  hand. 
The  description  stands  by  itself,  neither  connected  with  what  goes 
before  nor  with  what  follows.  It  has  the  appearance  of  a  separate 
poem,  which  accident  has  placed  in  its  present  position.  In  form  it 
is  "  a  lyrico-dramatic  dialogue  between  the  prophet  as  a  bystander, 
and  a  victorious  warrior  (i.e.,  Jehovah)  returning  from  battle  in 
Idumsea." ' 

Phillips  Brooks  vividly  pictures  the  scene  suggested  by  this  passage, 
and  helps  us  to  feel  how  real  and  inspiring  it  was  to  the  Israelites 
who  first  heard  it,  and  made  application  of  it  to  their  immediate  cir- 
cumstances. '  This  chapter  of  Isaiah  opens  in  a  strain  of  the  loftiest 
prophetic  poetry.  A  representative  of  Israel  stands  looking  down 
one  of  the  long  ravines  which  open  from  the  central  mountain  region 
of  the  country  toward  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea. 
As  he  watches  he  sees  a  stranger  approaching  him,  who  has  crossed 
the  valley  from  the  heights  beyond,  where  the  enemies  and  the 
heathen  live,  and  is  climbing  up  into  the  hills  of  Judaea.  It  is  an 
heroic  figure.  The  stature  is  grand.  The  head  is  proud  and  high. 
The  steps  are  free  and  stately.  The  garments  are  noble,  and  here 
and  there  upon  them,  staining  and  illustrating  their  brightness,  are 
the  marks  of  blood.  The  Genius  of  Israel,  for  so  we  may  conceive 
of  the  first  speaker,  is  filled  with  amazement,  and  challenges  the  new- 
comer with  this  ringing  question :  "  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from 
Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah  ?  This  that  is  glorious  in 
his  apparel,  travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength  ?"  Then  comes 
the  answer  :  "  I  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save."  As  he 


THE  CHAMPION  FIGURE  OF  MESSIAH.         541 

comes  nearer  the  mysterious  and  awful  stains  upon  his  clothing 
become  more  clear,  and  the  Genius  questions  him  again  :  "  Where- 
fore art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments  like  him  that 
treadeth  in  the  winefat  ?"  And  then  the  great  stranger  answers,  with 
the  story  of  a  struggle  and  a  victory  :  "I  have  trodden  the  winepress 
alone,  and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with  me,"  etc. 

'  What  does  it  mean — the  prophetic  Genius  waiting,  watching,  and 
questioning ;  the  mighty  stranger  coming  fresh  from  victorious  battle, 
with  the  robe  red  as  if  with  the  stain  of  grapes,  coming  up  from 
Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah  ?  Edom,  remember,  was 
the  country  where  the  Israelites'  most  inveterate  enemies  lived.  No 
other  nation  pressed  on  them  so  constantly,  or  gave  them  such  con- 
tinual trouble  as  the  Edomites.  And  Bozrah  was  the  capital  city  of 
Edom,  the  centre  of  its  power.  When  the  conqueror  comes  from 
Edom,  then,  and  finds  Israel  anxious  and  eager  upon  the  mountain, 
and  shows  her  his  stained  robe  in  sign  of  the  struggle  which  he  has 
gone  through,  and  then  tells  her  that  the  victory  is  complete,  that 
because  he  saw  that  she  had  no  defender  he  has  undertaken  her 
defence  and  trodden  Edom  under  foot  for  her,  we  can  understand 
something  of  the  power  and  comfort  of  such  a  poetic  vision  to  the 
Hebrew's  heart.  There  may  have  been  some  special  event  which  it 
commemorated.  Some  special  danger  may  have  threatened  on  the 
side  of  the  tumultuous  Edomites,  and  some  special  unexpected 
deliverer  may  have  appeared  who  saved  the  country,  and  was  honoured 
by  this  song  of  praise.' 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  champion  figure  of  Messiah  was 
not  suggested  by  the  triumphs  of  Judas  Maccabeus,  rather  than  by 
anything  in  the  Prophetic  Scriptures.  The  ideal  King  is  presented 
by  the  prophets,  but  this  is  the  only  case  in  which  the  Champion  is 
figured;  and  it  is  evident  that  much  strain  is  necessary,  if  these 
verses  are  to  be  made  descriptive  of  the  work  of  Messiah.  We  may 
spiritualize  in  this  direction,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  expound. 

Pressense,  after  alluding  to  the  marvellous  deliverance  wrought  by 
the  Maccabees,  says  :  '  This  magnificent  outburst  of  Jewish  patriotism 
was  to  create  an  idea  full  of  grandeur,  but  also  full  of  peril.  How 
could  Messiah  assume  any  other  form  than  that  of  Judas  Maccabeus, 
to  a  people  possessed  by  the  noblest  of  human  passions?  The 
pathetic  symbols  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  paled  before  the  image  of 
the  young  warrior,  crushing  the  might  of  Antiochus,  and  bathing  the 
steps  of  the  sanctuary  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrilegious.  This  vision 
of  the  warrior  archangel  was  thenceforward  ever  to  float  before  the 
eyes  of  the  Jews.' 


542      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

Transference  of  Human  Feelings  to  God. 

i  SAMUEL  xv.  29  :  '  And  also  the  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie  nor  repent ; 
for  he  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  repent.'  Verse  35  :  'And  the  Lord  repented 
that  he  had  made  Saul  king  over  Israel.' 

Difficulty. — There  must  be  differences  in  the  meanings  of  the  word 
*  repent J  if  God  can  be  said  both  '  not  to  repent]  and  to  *  repent? 

Explanation. — This  subject  enables  an  additional  word  to  be 
spoken  concerning  what  is  called  the  '  anthropomorphism  '  and  '  an- 
thropopathism '  of  the  early  Scriptures.  The  idea  of  representing 
God  by  the  bodily  actions  of  man,  the  movements  of  his  limbs,  does 
not  suggest  difficulty,  because  no  moral  quality  is  involved  in  any 
merely  bodily  movement.  But  when  we  represent  God  by  the  feel- 
ings and  emotions  of  men,  difficulty  is  introduced,  because,  in  the 
•sphere  of  his  feelings,  man  has  been  influenced  by  evil,  and  his  feel- 
ings are  no  longer  simply  natural.  Whenever,  therefore,  we  repre- 
sent God's  feeling  by  human  feeling,  we  have  to  eliminate  from  the 
'human  feeling  the  element  of  evil.  All  terms  that  imply  qualities 
that  go  to  constitute  humanity  can  be  conceived  of  as  innocent  and 
worthy :  and,  so  conceived,  they  can  properly  be  applied  to  God. 
There  is  a  right  repentance,  a  right  indignation,  a  right  fear,  even  a 
right  hatred.  If  we  can  think  of  a  man  with  every  human  charac- 
istic  and  quality  unaffected  by  wilfulness,  self-pleasing  and  sin,  then 
that  man  will  represent  God  in  His  moral  characteristics  and 
qualities. 

The  term  '  repentance '  used  in  the  above  passage,  may  illustrate 
this  point.  Repentance,  when  attributed  to  the  *  Father  of  lights, 
with  whom  there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning '  (Jas. 
i.  17),  can  mean  nothing  but  a  change  of  purpose  resulting  from  the 
altered  circumstances  of  those  who  are  the  occasion  of  it.  When  a 
nation  repents  of  its  sins  God  repents  of  the  evil  which  He  threatened 
to  do  to  it.  (See  Jer.  xviii.)  And  this  we  feel  to  be  in  every  way  worthy 
and  right.  We  could  not  conceive  of  God  as  righteous  if  He  did  not 
adjust  His  dealings  to  the  varying  conditions  of  His  free  creatures. 
This  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  history  of  Nineveh.  The  change  is  in 
the  minds  of  the  people  who  repent  when  warned  of  God's  judgments. 
The  unchangeableness  of  the  Divine  perfections  necessitates  a  cor- 
responding change  of  feeling  and  of  conduct  on  His  part.  Were  He 
to  feel  and  act  toward  the  impenitent  and  the  contrite  alike,  He 
would  not  be  the  Unchangeable  One.  His  promises  and  His 
threatenings  are  made,  not  to  certain  persons,  but  to  certain  characters; 
the  former  are  the  portion  of  His  obedient  children ;  the  latter  the 


1  THE  BARS  OF  THE  PIT:  543 

doom  of  the  impenitent  and  rebellious — c  the   children  of  wrath ' 
(Eph.  ii.  3). 

This  subject  has  been  treated  in  other  sections  of  this  volume,  and 
in  the  previous  volume ;  but  the  point  of  the  elimination  of  the  evil 
element  in  human  feeling,  before  it  can  worthily  represent  God,  has 
not  been  fully  set  forth. 


'The  Bars  of  the   Pit.' 

JOB  xvii.  1 6  :  *  They  shall  go  down  to  the  bars  of  the  pit,  when  our  rest  together 
is  in  the  dust.' 

Question. —  What  particular  idea  of  death  is  introduced  by  this 
expression  ? 

Answer. — Evidently  the  poet  thought  of  the  grave  (Sheol)  as  if 
it  were  a  great  subterranean  prison-house,  having  its  appropriate 
*  gates/  and  '  bars,'  and  '  bolts.' 

Dr.  Good  has  a  striking  note  on  this  verse :  '  Literally,  to  the 
limbs — the  grasping  limbs,  the  tremendous  claws  or  talons  of  the 
grave.  The  image  is  peculiarly  bold,  and  true  to  the  general 
character  under  which  the  grave  is  presented  to  us  in  the  figurative 
language  of  sacred  poetry — as  a  monster,  ever  greedy  to  devour,  with 
horrid  jaws  wide  gaping  for  his  prey ;  and,  in  the  passage  before  us, 
with  limbs  in  unison  with  his  jaws,  and  ready  to  seize  hold  of  the 
victims  allotted  to  him,  with  a  strength  and  violence  from  which  none 
can  extricate  themselves.  The  common  rendering  of  fulcra,  vectes,  or 
bars,  as  of  a  prison,  is  as  unnecessary  a  departure  from  the  proper 
figure  as  it  is  from  the  primary  meaning  of  the  original  term.' 

The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  explaining  the  verse  is  chiefly  a 
grammatical  one,  and  is  very  clearly  stated  by  Canon  Cook :  '  The 
interpretation  of  this  verse  is  encumbered  with  the  greatest  difficulties; 
but  it  is  of  so  much  importance  to  the  whole  bearing  of  the  argument 
that  it  seems  necessary  to  bring  them  before  the  reader.  The  first 
clause  consists  of  three  words:  (i)  the  first  is  ambiguous;  in  other 
passages  where  it  occurs,  it  means  "  boastings,"  or  "  parts,"  e.g.,  limbs 
of  a  man ;  or  "  bars,"  either  poles,  such  as  bear  the  ark,  or  possibly 
bars  of  a  gate;  hence  also,  metaphorically,  "chieftains."  Of  these 
meanings  the  only  one  which  seems  applicable  is  "  bars."  The  "bars 
of  the  pit "  will  therefore  signify  "  the  bars  of  the  gates  of  Hades, 
Sheol,  the  region  of  death."  (2)  The  "  pit,"  or  Sheol ;  about  this 
there  is  no  doubt.  (3)  "They  shall  go  down";  the  plural  third 
person  feminine  is  used.  The  question  is,  What  is  the  subject  of  this 
clause  ?  Our  translation  leaves  it  doubtful.  No  plural  goes  before 


544     HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

except  the  word  rendered  "  bars,"  and  that  is  masculine.  This  leaves 
two  alternatives  ;  either  "  hope,"  in  the  preceding  verse,  is  taken 
collectively  for  "all  my  hopes,"  which  is  very  questionable,  or  "bars," 
though  masculine,  yet  as  standing  for  "  gates "  (feminine),  may  be 
followed  by  a  feminine  verb.  Of  this  there  are  many  examples  in 
Hebrew,  one  remarkably  near  to  this  passage,  Prov.  vii.  17.  Merx, 
also  (though  he  renders  it  "  my  limbs  ")  takes  it  to  be  the  true  subject 
of  the  sentence.  If  we  adopt  the  former,  with  most  interpreters,  we 
have,  "  my  hopes  will  go  down  to  the  bars  of  Sheol,"  will  have  there 
their  home.  This  construction  is  improbable,  involving  a  very  harsh 
metaphor,  as  though  a  man's  hopes  went  down  to  the  bars  of  Sheol 
when  he  died,  an  expression  to  which  it  seems  impossible  to  attach 
definite  meaning.  If  we  take  the  latter,  we  have,  "  the  bars  of  Sheol 
will  go  down,  will  fall,  be  cast  down."  The  same  verb  is  used  of  a  wood 
which  is  cut  down  and  falls,  of  a  falling  wall,  etc.  The  expression  is 
of  doubtful  meaning,  since  the  bars  may  fall  at  the  approach  or  will 
of  a  deliverer  :  and  again,  it  is  possible  that  the  words  may  be  read 
interrogatively,  "  will  the  bars  of  Hades  fall  ?"  The  former  meaning 
seems  not  to  accord  with  the  state  of  Job's  feelings  at  the  time ;  it 
is  too  definite  a  hope,  it  stands  out  too  strongly  in  relief  from  the 
surrounding  gloom;  but  the  latter  appears  to  correspond  exactly  with 
his  inner  mind ;  he  asks,  is  there  hope  ?  where  is  it  ?  whp  can  see  it  ? 
will  the  bars  of  Hades  fall  ?  will  God  "  remember  me  "?  "  shall  I  live 
again  ?"  will  God  call  ?  shall  I  answer  Him  ?  will  the  Mighty,  before 
Whom  hell  is  naked,  destruction  hath  no  covering  (xxvi.  6),  make 
both  bear  witnesses  to  him  (see  xxviii.  22)  ?  will  the  gates  of  hell  fall 
down,  its  bars  be  broken,  its  dwellers  be  delivered  ?  Such  a  question 
is  in  harmony  with  the  whole  under-current  of  thought;  it  is  not 
indeed  equivalent  to  the  expression  of  a  hope,  but  it  is  a  true  aspira- 
tion, and,  as  such,  an  unconscious  prophecy.' 

Jonah's    Prayer. 

JONAH  ii.  I  :  '  Then  Jonah  prayed  unto  the  Lord  his  God  out  of  the  fish's  belly.' 

Difficulty. — These  must  surely  represent  the  prophets  after- 
thoughts. 

Explanation. — In  the  former  volume,  '  Handbook  of  Biblical 
Difficulties,'  p.  410,  John  Bellamy's  curious  and  original  study  of  this 
narrative  has  been  given ;  if  his  view  could  be  accepted,  and  we 
might  understand  that  Jonah  was  cast  adrift  in  the  ship's  boat,  and 
left  to  his  fate  in  the  angry  sea,  the  prayer  of  Jonah  would  be  readily 
explained.  Bellamy  reads  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter  thus  :  'Then 


JONAH'S  PR  A  YER.  545 

Fonah  prayed  to  Jehovah  his  God  :  from  the  belly  of  the  barge.'  To 
preserve  the  prayer,  Jonah  must  have  thought  it  over  again  after- 
wards, and  written  it  down. 

There  are  those  who  would  regard  the  Book  of  Jonah  as  a  work  of 
magination,  a  poem,  and  not  historically  descriptive ;  and  it  must  be 
idmitted  that  the  records  of  Nineveh  have  preserved  no  account  of 
such  an  incident.  On  this  hypothesis  the  extraordinary  situations 
ind  figures  can  be  naturally  explained ;  they  are  the  expression  of  the 
poetical  genius. 

'  The  most  various  opinions  have  prevailed  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
book.  It  has  been  accepted  as  literal  history,  it  has  been  described 
is  pure  fiction.  Some  have  called  it  a  parable,  others  an  allegory, 
others  a  poetical  myth,  others  a  dream  ;  others  again,  while  recognising 
an  historical  basis,  hold  that  the  narrative  has  been  enlarged  and  em- 
bellished to  suit  the  purposes  of  the  unknown  author.' 

The  Speaker  s  Commentary  assumes  an  actual  residence  for  some 
time  in  the  interior  of  some  large  fish,  and  thus  explains  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  hymn,  or  prayer,  and  its  very  striking  figures.  But  how 
[he  weeds  could  be  wrapped  about  the  prophet's  head,  when  he  was 
inside  the  body  of  a  fish,  does  not  readily  appear.  *  The  narrative 
illows  us  to  assume,  that  upon  his  sinking  in  the  water,  and  being  at 
once  swallowed  up  by  the  fish,  the  prophet,  in  a  perfectly  natural  way, 
became  in  a  very  short  while  insensible ;  that,  though  miraculously 
cept  alive,  he,  however,  continued  thus  insensible ;  and  that  it  was  not 
:ill  towards  the  close  of  the  time  specified,  or  even  not  till  he  was 
)eing  ejected  upon  the  land,  that  he  was  "waked  out  of  sleep.'r 
The  testimony  of  many  persons  who  have  suffered  drowning,  or  been 
otherwise  in  imminent  danger  of  almost  certain  destruction,  shows 
:hat,  at  such  seasons  of  extraordinary  experience,  the  extreme  tension 
)f  the  mind  makes  it  capable  of  passing  with  amazing  rapidity 
:hrough  a  vast  succession  of  thoughts  and  feelings,  many  of  which  are 
ifterwards  distinctly  remembered.  Something  of  this  kind  we  may 
surmise  to  have  occurred  in  this  case  of  Jonah :  earnest  prayers, 
-vhile  he  was  sinking  in  the  deep,  and  was  being  swallowed  up  by  the 
ish,  with,  perhaps,  even  then,  a  prophetic  assurance  of  Divine  pre- 
.ervation  :  and  when  he  awoke  to  consciousness,  a  joyous  sense  of 
safety,  and  ardent  outgoing  of  thankfulness  to  his  Ereserver.  The 
sentiments  of  his  ode  are  those  which  he  had  then  felt :  they&rw,  into 
-vhich  they  here  appear  cast,  and  which  presents  a  highly  finished 
specimen  of  Hebrew  poetry,  we  must  suppose  to  h:u'e  been  the  pro- 
duction of  a  later  and  more  tranquil  hour.'  *  In  Jonah's  hymn 
several  expressions  occur  which  are  found  also  in  the  Psalms.  This 

35 


546      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES, 

has  suggested  the  remark,  which  has  been  often  repeated,  that  the 
hymn  is  little  more  than  a  cento  made  up  of  passages  taken  out  of  the 
Psalms,  and  that,  therefore,  the  book  was  of  late  composition.  More 
exact  and  discriminating  criticism  warrants  the  conclusion,  that  pro- 
bably the  writer  of  the  hymn  was  familiar  with  some  of  the  Psalms,  as 
the  pious  among  the  Israelites  would  be  certain  to  be  ;  but  that  the 
phrases  which  the  hymn  has  in  common  with  the  Psalms  seem  from 
internal  evidence  to  be  of  two  kinds  ;  some  having  the  appearance  of 
being  adopted  from  the  Psalms ;  while  others  apparently  were  used 
first  in  the  hymn,  and  were  borrowed  therefrom  by  other  writers. 

Note. — Some  persons  object  to  any  critical  examination  of  the 
story  of  Jonah,  on  the  ground  that  our  Lord  set  His  seal  upon  the 
narrative  as  strictly  historical  and  true,  by  His  allusion  to  it  in 
Matthew  xii.  39,  40.  A.  S.  Aglen,  M.  A.,  has  an  altogether  satisfactory 
note  in  Ellicott's  Commentary,  which  should  correct  the  mistaken 
idea  that  our  Lord  affirms  the  historical  truth  of  everything  to  which 
He  refers  by  way  of  illustration.  '  The  references  of  our  Lord  to 
Jonah  no  more  attest  the  literal  truth  of  the  book,  than  His  allusion 
to  the  Psalms  as  David's  settles  the  authorship  of  the  whole  of  the 
Psalter.  It  would  be  strange  if  He  who  chose  the  parabolic  method 
to  convey  the  highest  truths  of  His  Kingdom,  should  have  hesitated 
to  enforce  them  by  reference  to  writings  of  the  same  kind,  even 
supposing  we  are  not  right  in  judging  of  His  knowledge  on  points 
of  literary  criticism  as  limited.  The  argument  of  Keil  and  others, 
that  Jonah  could  not  have  been  adduced  as  a  type  of  Christ  unless 
his  history  is  actual  fact,  is  only  valid  when  we  have  restricted  the 
meaning  of  the  word  type  to  suit  the  argument.  And  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  represent  Jonah  as  a  type^  but  as  a  sign.' 


Job's   Confidence  in  his  Goel. 

JOB  xix.  25  :  '  For  I  know  that  my  redeemer  liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  at 
the  latter  day  upon  the  earth.' 

Question. — Can  Job's  expression  be  reasonably  limited  to  his 
earthly  experiences  ? 

Answer. — So  much  depends  on  the  view  which  we  take  of  the 
design  and  character  of  this  Book  of  Job ;  and,  indeed,  on  the  date 
we  assign  for  its  composition.  If  it  belongs  to  the  period  of 
Solomon  it  will  reflect  the  Solomonic  ideas  concerning  the  future 
world. 

As  a  poem  its  range  is  limited  to  the  strictly  earthly  experiences  of 


JOB'S  CONFIDENCE  IN  HIS  GOEL.  547 

the  patriarch.  Its  expressions  may  suggest  more  than  this  to  Chris- 
tian-minded persons,  but  we  need  not  associate  all  our  ideas  con- 
cerning it  with  the  poet,  and  it  will  give  fresh  force  and  meaning  to 
many  passages,  if  we  can  read  them  in  the  light  of  a  hoped-for  earthly 
vindication  and  restoration.  And  this  is  not  difficult  when  a  precise 
rendering  of  this  passage  is  placed  before  us. 

The  Various  Renderings  are,  for  '  redeemer '  put  *  avenger/  Heb. 
'goel.'  For  '  at  the  latter  day,'  put  'at  the  last,'  ///.  'as  one  coming 
afterwards.'  Verse  26  reads,  *  after  this  my  skin  hath  been  mangled.' 
But  the  text  is  doubtful. 

The  Revised  Version  reads :  *  But  (for)  I  know  that  my  redeemer 
(vindicator)  liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  up  at  the  last  upon  the 
earth  (dust) ;  and  after  my  skin  hath  been  thus  destroyed,  yet  from 
(without)  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God  :  whom  I  shall  see  for  myself  (on 
my  side),  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another  (as  a  stranger). 
My  reins  are  consumed  within  me.' 

Noyef  Translation  reads  thus  : 

'  Yet  I  know  that  my  Vindicator  liveth, 
And  will  stand  up  at  length  on  the  earth  ; 
And  though  with  my  skin  this  body  be  wasted  away, 
Yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God. 
Yes,  I  shall  see  Him  my  friend, 
My  eyes  shall  behold  Him  no  longer  an  adversary  ; 
For  this  my  soul  panteth  within  me.' 

These  renderings,  being  more  precise  and  literal,  bring  out  clearly 
the  idea  of  the  poet,  and  make  it  plain  that  Job  rather  expected  his 
Vindicator  to  appear  on  this  earth,  while  he  lived,  than  gained 
any  clear  vision  of  the  adjustment  of  all  perplexities  in  the  life  to 
come. 

Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson  has  an  instructive  note.  '  The  term  redeemer 
(Heb.  goel)  is  frequently  used  of  God  as  the  deliverer  of  His  people 
out  of  captivity,  and  also  as  the  deliverer  of  individuals  from  distress. 
Among  men  the  goel  was  the  nearest  blood-relation,  on  whom  it  lay 
to  perform  certain  offices  in  connection  with  the  deceased  whose  goel 
he  was,  particularly  to  avenge  his  blood  if  he  had  been  unjustly  slain. 
Job  here  names  God  his  goel.  The  passage  stands  in  close  relation 
withch.  xvi.  18,  19,  where  he  names  God  his  "witness" and  "sponsor," 
or  representative.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  there  is  an  allusion 
to  the  Goel  among  men — Job  has  in  God  a  Goel  who  liveth.  This 
Goel  will  vindicate  his  rights  against  the  wrong  both  of  men  and  God 
(verses  3,  7).  At  the  same  time  this  vindication  is  regarded  less  as 
an  avenging  of  him,  at  least  on  others  (though  compare  verses  28,  29), 
than  as  a  manifestation  of  his  innocence.  This  manifestation  can 

35—2 


548      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

only  be  made  by  God's  appearing  and  showing  the  true  relation  in 
which  Job  stands  to  Him,  and  by  Job's  seeing  God.  For  his  distress 
lay  in  God's  hiding  His  face  from  him,  and  his  redemption  must 
come  through  his  again  beholding  God  in  peace.  Thus  the  ideas  of 
Goe'l  and  Redeemer  virtually  coincide.'  *  The  word  "  earth,"  or 
"  dust,"  does  not  mean  earth  in  opposition  to  heaven ;  such  an  anti- 
thesis did  not  need  to  be  expressed :  if  God  came  forward  or  inter- 
posed in  Job's  behalf  He  must  do  so  upon  the  earth.' 

Dr.  Stanley  Leathes  marks  carefully  the  connection  of  the  passage. 
'  We  must  carefully  note  all  the  passages  which  lead  up  to  this  one. 
First,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  Bildad  (ch.  xviii.  17-20)  had 
threatened  Job  with  the  extinction  of  his  name  and  memory,  so  that 
he  now  appeals  to  the  verdict  of  futurity,  and  with  what  success  we 
ourselves,  who  read,  and  repeat,  and  discuss  his  words,  are  witnesses. 
Then  in  Job's  own  speeches  we  have,  as  early  as  ch.  ix.  32-35,  his 
longing  for  a  daysman  to  come  between  himself  and  God.  Then,  in 
chs.  x.  7,  xiii.  15-19,  he  emphatically  declares  his  innocence,  and 
appeals  to  God  as  conscious  of  it.  In  ch.  xvi.  19  he  affirms  that  his 
witness  is  in  the  high  heavens ;  in  verse  2 1  of  the  same  chapter  he 
longs  for  an  advocate  to  plead  his  cause.  In  ch.  xvii.  3  he  calls  upon 
God  to  be  surety  for  him.  Therefore,  he  has  already  recognised  God 
as  \tt.<$>  judge,  his  umpire,  his  advocate,  his  witness  and  surety,  and  in 
some  cases  by  formal  confession  of  the  fact,  in  others  by  earnest 
longing  after  and  aspirations  for  some  one  to  act  in  that  capacity. 
Here,  then,  he  goes  a  step  further  in  expression,  if  not  by  implication, 
and  declares  his  knowledge  that  he  has  a  Goe'l  or  Redeemer.  .  .  .  The 
various  and  conditional  functions,  then,  of  this  Goe'l,  Job  is  assured, 
God  will  take  upon  Himself  for  him ;  He  will  avenge  his  quarrel 
(comp.  Ps.  xxxv.  i,  23),  He  will  be  surety  for  him.  He  will  vindicate 
him  before  men  and  before  God  Himself;  He  will  do  for  him  what 
none  of  his  professed  friends  would  undertake  to  do.  And  as  to  this 
matter,  he  has  not  the  slightest  doubt,  he  states  most  emphatically 
that  he  himself  knows  that  this  Goel  liveth.  "  And  I,  even  I,  know ; 
as  for  me,  I  know  that  my  Vindicator  is  living,  that  He  liveth,  is  a 
reality  existing  now,  and  not  one  to  come  into  existence  hereafter, 
though  His  manifestation  may  be  a  thing  of  the  future,  for  He  shall 
stand  at  the  last  upon  the  earth,"  or,  "  He  shall  stand  last  upon 
earth "  (comp.  Isa.  xl.  8),  that  is,  after  all  others  have  passed  away 
and  gone  down  to  the  bars  of  the  tomb.' 

This  deeply  interesting,  though  unusually  difficult,  passage  will 
fully  repay  further  study.  A  consideration  of  anything  beyond  its 
language  would  not  be  appropriate  in  this  section. 


ANGELS  FOOD.  549 

Angels'  Food. 

PSALM  Ixxviii.  25  :  '  Man  did  eat  angels'  food  :  he  sent  them  meat  to  the  full.' 

Question. —  What  idea  could  the  Psalmist  possibly  have  had  of  the 
food  of  angels? 

Answer. — We  cannot  wisely  force  precise  meanings  to  a  poet's 
figures  of  speech.  The  Psalmist  knew  little  or  nothing  about  angels, 
or  about  their  food :  it  was  enough  for  his  purpose  that  there  were 
common  sentiments  about  angels  prevailing  in  his  day.  This  fact 
sufficiently  justifies  his  figurative  allusion  to  them  and  their  food. 

But  the  actual  Hebrew  means  '  bread  of  mighty  ones,'  and,  as  the 
second  clause  suggests,  may  only  be  a  poet's  representation  of  the 
idea  of  abundance.  The  '  mighty  ones  '  are  the  men  of  large  appe- 
tites and  capacities  ;  and  God  provided  so  abundantly  for  His  people, 
that  it  seemed  as  if  He  reckoned  them  all  to  be  '  mighty  ones,'  men 
of  large  appetites :  and  then  every  one  of  them  was  satisfied  '  to  the 
full.' 

Some,  however,  prefer  to  understand  '  Food  supplied  by  angel 
ministrations.'  See  the  expression  'corn  from  heaven  '  as  descriptive 
of  *  manna,'  in  verse  24.  '  The  symbolism  of  manna  is  recognised  by 
all  Christian  divines,  and  rests  upon  the  authority  of  our  Lord,  from 
whose  words,  however,  it  is  clear  that  manna  was  a  product  of  earth, 
supplied  by  heavenly  power,  and  but  a  figure  of  the  true  bread 
"  which  cometh  down  from  heaven"  (John  vi.  49-51).' 

Some  explain,  after  Job  xxiv.  22,  xxxiv.  30,  lordly  food,  such  as 
nobles  eat — here  quails. 

The  ancient  versions  (Sept.,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  Arab.,  sEthiop^  render  it 
'bread  of  angels,'  and  the  Targum  paraphrases  it,  'food  which  came 
down  from  the  dwelling-place  of  angels.'  (Comp.  Wisd.  xvi.  20.)  'Thou 
feddest  Thine  own  people  with  angels'  food,  and  didst  send  them 
from  heaven  bread  prepared  without  labour,  able  to  content  every 
man's  delight,  and  agreeing  to  every  taste.' 

Dean  Perowne  says  :  '  "  Angels'  bread,"  not  as  if  angels  were 
nourished  by  it,  or  as  if  it  were  food  worthy  of  angels,  but  as  coming 
from  heaven,  where  angels  dwell.  The  word  mighty  is  nowhere  else 
used  of  the  angels.' 

Delitzsch  writes  :  '  Notwithstanding  Israel's  unbelief,  God  remained 
faithful :  He  caused  manna  to  rain  down  out  of  the  opened  gates  of 
heaven  (cf.  '  the  windows  of  heaven,'  Gen.  vii.  1 1 ;  2  Kings  vii.  2  ; 
Mai.  iii.  10),  that  is  to  say,  "  in  richest  abundance."  The  manna  is 
called  corn  (as  in  Ps.  cv.  40,  after  Exod.  xvi.  4,  it  is  called  dread)  of 


550      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

heaven,  because  it  descended  in  the  form  of  grains  of  corn,  and 
supplied  the  place  of  bread-corn  during  the  forty  years.  .  .  .  The 
manna  is  called  '  bread  of  angels,'  as  being  bread  from  heaven,  the 
dwelling-place  of  angels,  as  being  mann  es-sema,  heaven's  gift,  its 
Arabic  name — a  name  which  also  belongs  to  the  vegetable  manna 
which  flows  out  of  the  Tamarix  mannifera  in  consequence  of  the 
puncture  of  the  Coccus  manniparus^  and  is,  even  in  the  present  day, 
invaluable  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  desert  of  Sinai.' 


The  Parable  of  the  Ploughman  and  Thresher. 

ISAIAH  xxviii.  24  :  '  Doth  the  plowman  plow  all  day  to  sow  ?'  verse  27,  '  The 
fitches  are  not  threshed  with  a  threshing  instrument.' 

Question. —  Can  this  passage  (verses  23-29)  be  treated  as  an 
instance  of  Old  Testament  parabolic  teaching  ? 

Answer. — The  parable  proper,  though  not  invented  by  our  Lord, 
received  special  treatment  from  Him.  It  would  not  have  struck  us 
to  call  this  passage  more  than  an  illustration,  taken  from  agricultural 
customs,  but  one  of  our  most  careful  and  suggestive  Bible  writers, 
Dr.  S.  Cox,  finds  in  it  a  parable,  and  we  are  set  upon  re-examining  it 
with  his  help. 

Vallings  strongly  affirms  that  our  Lord  created  the  parable.  '  Our 
Lord's  sympathy  with  Nature  was  not  only  artistic,  it  was  moral. 
The  poet  interprets  the  beautiful  in  Nature,  the  physicist  the  order  of 
facts  ;  Christ  drew  out  the  moral  and  spiritual  revelation.  Job  had 
seen  something  of  this.  Isaiah  too,  and  the  psalmists.  But  Christ 
was  the  first  to  emphasize  the  unity  between  Nature  and  grace.  His 
parables  are  translations  of  the  order  of  Nature  into  the  order  of 
grace.  He  created  the  parable.  Apologues  are  found  such  as 
Judg.  ix.  8  and  following,  2  Sam.  xii.  i,  but  the  parable  was  a  spiritual 
work  of  art  unattempted  before.  The  Buddhist  parables  of  the  so- 
called  "  Sower,"  and  "  Prodigal  Son,"  may  be  compared,  not  as 
possessing  "exactly  the  same  tone  and  the  same  character,"  as 
M.  Renan  affirms,  but  as  allegorical  tales  and  images  suggesting 
doctrinal  or  moral  lessons.' 

Stalker  says  :  '  It  was  a  favourite  Jewish  mode  of  putting  truth,  but 
Jesus  imparted  to  it  by  far  the  richest  and  most  perfect  development.' 

Edersheim  carefully  distinguishes  the  Jewish  from  the  Christian 
parable.  *  Little  information  is  to  be  gained  from  discussing  the 
etymology  of  the  word  Parable.  The  verb  from  which  it  is  derived 
means  to  project ;  and  the  term  itself,  the  placing  of  one  thing  by  the 
side  of  another.  Perhaps  no  other  mode  of  teaching  was  so  common 


THE  PLOUGHMAN  AND  THRESHER.  551 

among  the  Jews  as  that  of  Parables.  (Every  ancient  Rabbinical 
work  is  literally  full  of  them.)  Only,  in  their  case,  they  were  almost 
entirely  illustrations  of  what  had  been  said  or  taught ;  while,  in  the 
case  of  Christ,  they  served  as  the  foundation  for  His  teaching.  In 
the  one  case,  the  light  of  earth  was  cast  heavenwards,  in  the  other, 
that  of  heaven  earthwards  ;  in  the  one  case  it  was  intended  to  make 
spiritual  teaching  appear  Jewish  and  national,  in  the  other  to  convey 
spiritual  teaching  in  a  form  adapted  to  the  standpoint  of  the  hearers. 
This  distinction  will  be  found  to  hold  true,  even  in  instances  where 
there  seems  the  closest  parallelism  between  a  Rabbinic  and  an 
Evangelic  Parable.' 

Trench  says  that  every  type  is  a  real  parable ;  and  in  calling  the 
above  passage  a  parable,  Dr.  Cox  must  use  the  term  in  such  a  com- 
prehensive sense.  He  says  :  *  The  double  aspect  of  God's  character, 
as  Judge  and  Redeemer,  as  judging  that  He  may  redeem,  is  set  forth 
by  the  prophet  Isaiah  in  a  parable  which  is  not  familiar  to  most 
readers  of  the  Bible,  I  think,  although  it  deserves  to  be  familiar, 
since  it  expresses  the  merciful  and  redeeming  purpose  of  the  Divine 
judgments  in  a  simple,  yet  beautiful  and  impressive  form.  The 
general  drift  of  it  is  obvious.  The  husbandman  does  not  for  ever  vex 
and  wound  the  tender  bosom  of  the  earth  with  the  keen  edge  of  the 
ploughshare,  or  the  sharp  teeth  of  the  harrow.  He  ploughs  only  that 
he  may  sow  ;  he  harrows  the  ground  only  that  he  may  produce  a 
level  and  unclodded  surface  on  which  to  cast  his  seeds.  And  when 
he  sows,  he  gives  to  every  seed  its  appropriate  place  and  usage.  He 
scatters  the  dill  (black  cummin)  and  strews  the  cummin  broadcast ; 
but  the  wheat  he  sets,  according  to  the  Oriental  fashion,  in  long  rows, 
and  the  barley  in  a  place  specially  marked  out  for  it,  so  marked  as  to 
exclude  the  borders  of  the  field  :  and  here,  along  the  edges  of  the 
field,  where  it  is  most  likely  to  be  bitten  or  trampled  by  passing 
beasts,  he  sows  the  less  valuable  spelt  (or  hairless  corn).  In  short, 
he  ploughs  and  harrows  only  that  he  may  sow  and  plant ;  and  when 
sowing-time  has  come,  he  deals  with  every  seed  after  its  kind,  giving 
it  its  appropriate  place  and  treatment.  And  this  he  does  because 
God  has  given  him  discretion,  and  has  taught  him  by  experience 
how  to  handle  the  soil  and  the  seeds  so  as  to  produce  the  most 
abundant  results.  Is  God,  then,  less  wise  than  the  husbandman 
whom  He  has  taught  ?  So,  again,  when  the  harvest  is  gathered  in, 
the  wise  husbandman  still  varies  and  adapts  his  means  to  his  end. 
When  he  would  thresh  out  the  light  aromatic  seeds  of  the  black  and 
the  grey  cummin,  he  does  not  crush  them  under  the  heavy  rollers  of 
the  threshing-sledge,  nor  does  he  drive  the  ponderous  and  serrated 
wheels  of  the  threshing  waggon  over  them,  but  he  strikes  them  lightly 


552      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

with  a  switch  or  other  slender  flail.  "Bread-corn,"  indeed,  "must 
be  bruised,"  but  even  when  the  sledge,  or  the  waggon,  is  driven  over 
it,  to  separate  the  grain  from  the  chaff,  or  when  the  horses  are  led  to 
and  fro  on  the  threshing-floor,  to  tread  out  the  grain  with  their  feet, 
the  judicious  husbandman  takes  care  triat  the  process  is  not  pro- 
longed until  the  grain  itself  is  crushed.  He  does  not  go  on  thresh- 
ing "  for  ever  ;"  his  single  aim  is  to  separate  the  chaff  from  the  wheat, 
to  save  as  much  of  the  grain  as  he  can,  and  to  save  it  in  the  best 
condition  he  can,  that  it  may  be  gathered  into  his  garner.  And  he 
thus  varies  his  modes  of  treatment,  and  adapts  them  to  the  several 
kinds  of  seeds,  because  God  has  given  him  sagacity  and  wisdom. 
Will  God,  then,  who  gave  the  husbandman  this  sagacity,  be  less 
observant  of  time  and  measure?  Will  He  crush  and  waste  the 
precious  grain  of  His  threshing-floor  ?"  "  In  this  parable,  the 
mystery  of  the  Divine  Providence  is  laid  open,  its  secret  disclosed. 
All  ploughing  is  for  sowing ;  all  threshing  is  intended  for  the 
preservation  of  the  grain."  When  God  chastens  us,  it  is  not  because 
He  means  to  destroy  us,  but  because  He  has  set  His  heart  on  saving 
us,  because  He  has  appointed  us  to  life,  and  not  to  death.' 

The  Cross  as  a  Symbol. 

MATTHEW  x.  38  :  '  And  he  that  taketh  not  his  cross,  and  followeth  after  me,  is 
not  worthy  of  me.' 

Difficulty. — Our  Lord  must  have  used  this  term  as  a  well  under- 
stood and  familiar  figure  of  speech  in  His  day.  He  could  not  have 
referred  to  His  own  death  on  the  cross. 

Explanation. — Our  associations  with  the  figure  of  the  cross  so 
entirely  absorb  us,  that  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  admit  any  other  associa- 
tions ;  and  yet  the  cross  has  been  a  great  religious  symbol  from  the 
earliest  times,  and  in  connection  with  nearly  all  religions  ;  and  came 
to  take  its  place  as  a  common  figure  of  speech,  long  before  the  special 
Christian  associations  were  fixed  to  it. 

This  point  is  one  of  so  great  interest,  and  is  so  little  known  by 
ordinary  Scripture  readers,  that  a  few  facts  in  relation  to  it  will  be 
acceptable. 

'  Turning  to  the  early  Chaldaean  and  Egyptians  nations,  we  find  that 
a  variety  of  the  crux  ansata  (crosses  with  circles  on  their  heads)  is 
found  in  the  sculptures  from  Khorsabad  and  the  ivories  from  Nim- 
rod.  M.  Lajard  refers  it  to  the  Assyrian  symbol  of  divinity,  the 
winged  figure  in  a  circle ;  but  Egyptian  antiquaries  quite  reject  the 
theory.  In  the  Egyptian  sculptures  a  similar  object,  called  a  crux 
ansata,  is  constantly  borne  by  divinities,  and  is  variously  called  "  the 


THE  CROSS  AS  A  SYMBOL.  553 

key  of  the  Nile,"  "the  character  of  Venus,"  and  more  correctly,  the 
"emblem  of  life."  "The  Egyptians  thereby  expressed  the  powers 
and  motion  of  the  spirit  of  the  world,  and  the  diffusion  thereof  upon 
the  celestial  and  elemental  nature."  This,  too,  was  the  signification 
given  to  it  by  the  Christian  converts  in  the  army  of  Theodosius, 
when  they  remarked  it  on  the  temple  of  Serapis,  according  to  the 
story  mentioned  in  Suidas.  The  same  symbol  has  been  also  found 
among  the  Copts,  and  (perhaps  accidentally)  among  the  Indians  and 
Persians.' 

Dr.  Otto  Zoeckler  has  fully  dealt  with  the  literature  of  this  symbol, 
and  a  few  points  may  be  taken  from  his  valuable  and  instructive 
work  *  The  Cross  of  Christ '  (Hodder  and  Stoughton).  '  The  cross 
is  the  deeply  significant  symbol  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  yet 
religious  significance  attaches  to  it  not  merely  within  the  bounds  of 
Christianity.  It  is  not  so  exclusively  an  emblem  of  faith  in  Christ  as 
to  appear,  beyond  the  sphere  thereof,  only  in  the  form  of  ordinary 
embellishment,  as  a  meaningless  ornament  or  an  unimportant  thing 
of  chance.  The  cross  plays  an  important  part  as  a  religious  symbol, 
even  in  the  history  of  the  pre-Christian  and  extra-Christian  religions. 
We  meet  with  it  under  various  modifications,  alike  of  its  external 
form  and  character  as  also  of  its  import,  among  the  extra-Christian 
nations  of  antiquity  as  of  the  present  day,  of  the  Old  as  of  the  New 
World.  Rude  and  barbarous  peoples  of  the  torrid  as  of  the  temperate 
zones,  and  representatives  of  almost  every  stage  of  heathen  civiliza- 
tion— Greeks  and  Romans,  dwellers  by  the  Nile,  as  by  the  Ganges, 
Godavery  and  Indus,  aborigines  of  the  new-discovered  North, 
Central,  and  South  America,  and  islanders  of  the  South  Sea — have 
placed  this  mysterious  symbol  upon  their  monuments.  Only  in 
rarer  cases  can  a  purely  mundane  significance  be  shown  to  attach  to 
these  cruciform  signs  which  adorn  the  monuments  of  heathendom. 
The  entire  absence  of  any  kind  of  religious  import  appears  in  the 
case  of  most  of  them  more  difficult  of  supposition,  than  their  destina- 
tion to  some  kind  or  other  of  culture-end — though  this  end  may  often 
remain  scarcely  discernible,  or  may  in  the  course  of  time  have  fallen 
into  oblivion,  and  the  cruciform  figure  in  question  may  thus  have 
sunk  down  almost  to  a  mere  ornament,  or  garniture  without  signifi- 
cance. Nay,  a  certain  general  identity  of  nature  in  the  religious 
significance  of  these  extra-Christian  cross-symbols  with  that  of  our 
religion  is  susceptible  of  proof.  They  are  either,  as  in  the  majority 
of  cases,  emblematic  of  Blessing,  and  thus  express  a  religious  con- 
sciousness directed  positively  to  the  Divine,  and  thence  beneficially 
affected  and  satisfied ;  or  they  are  symbols  of  the  Curse^  and  thus 
serve  only  to  express  a  consciousness  disposed  in  a  negatively 


554      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

religious  manner,  one  which  remains  unreconciled  and  obdurate 
under  the  experience  of  the  Divine  wrath  against  sin.  The  two 
forces,  that  of  the  curse  and  that  of  the  blessing,  that  of  death  and 
that  of  life,  of  wrath  and  of  grace,  brought  into  immediate  oneness  in 
the  Cross  of  Christ,  regularly  diverge  from  each  other  in  the  typical 
phenomena  of  the  pre-Christian  religious  life  ;  yea,  they  appear  almost 
always  abruptly  severed,  and  opposed  the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  we 
find  either  divinely  blessing  (agathodaemonic)  powers,  or  hellishly  con- 
demning and  destroying  ones  (cacodsemonic,  typhonic),  apparently 
manifesting  themselves  therein.  A  shadowy  expectation  that  the  place 
of  the  curse  might  and  would  one  day  become  the  place  in  which  the 
fountain  of  blessing  and  salvation  would  be  opened  for  the  suffering, 
God-estranged  humanity,  does  not  appear  clothed  in  any  other  form 
than  in  one  extremely  obscure  and  indefinite,  either  in  heathendom, 
or  even  in  Judaism.  To  the  height  of  a  clear  prophetic  prescience  it 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  developed  even  in  the  case  of  the  most 
enlightened  man  of  God  under  the  Old  Covenant.'. 

But  this  does  not  help  us  to  the  specific  associations  which  made 
*  bearing  the  cross,'  '  taking  up  the  cross,'  familiar  symbolical  expres- 
sions in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  In  this  case  we  find  purely  local 
suggestions.  Dean  Plumptre  says  :  'The  words  (Matt.  x.  38)  were 
hardly  a  specific  announcement  of  the  manner  of  our  Lord's  death, 
though  they  imply,  interpreted  by  events,  a  distinct  prevision  of  it, 
such  as  that  which  we  trace  in  John  iii.  14.  To  the  disciples  they 
would  recall  the  sad  scenes  which  Roman  rule  had  made  familiar  to 
them,  the  procession  of  robbers  or  rebels,  each  carrying  the  cross  on 
which  he  was  to  suffer  to  the  place  of  execution.  They  would  learn 
that  they  were  called  to  a  like  endurance  of  ignominy  and  suffering.' 

Carr  regards  the  sentence  as  a  'further  advance  in  the  devotion 
and  self-abandonment  required  in  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  The  cross 
is  named  for  the  first  time  by  the  Saviour  .  .  .  The  Galilseans  would 
know  too  well  what  was  meant  by  "  taking  the  cross."  Many 
hundreds  had  paid  that  forfeiture  for  rebellion  that  had  not  prospered 
under  Judas  the  Gaulonite  and  others.' 

A  Mystical  Allegory. 

GALATIANS  iv.  24  (Rev.  Ver.} :  '  Which  things  contain  an  allegory  :  for  these 
women  are  two  covenants.' 

Difficulty. — It  is  nearly  impossible  to  follow  the  Apostles  argu- 
ment in  this  passage.  He  seems  to  use  the  historical  allusion  in  a 
strained  sense. 


A  MYSTICAL  ALLEGORY.  555 

Explanation. — The  passage  may  properly  be  called  a  mystical 
allegory,  *  in  which  a  double  meaning  is  couched  under  the  same 
words,  or  when  the  same  prediction,  according  as  it  is  differently 
interpreted,  relates  to  different  events,  distant  in  time,  and  distinct 
in  their  nature.  The  Mystical  Allegory  differs  from  the  ordinary 
Allegory,  or  continued  metaphor,  and  from  the  parable,  or  simili- 
tude, in  the  nature  of  its  materials  ;  the  mystical  allegory  is  ex- 
clusively derived  from  things  sacred.  There  is  likewise  this  further 
distinction,  that  in  those  other  forms  of  allegory,  the  exterior  or 
ostensible  imagery  is  fiction  only ;  the  truth  lies  altogether  in  the 
interior  or  remote  sense,  which  is  veiled,  as  it  were,  under  this  thin 
or  pellucid  covering.  But,  in  the  mystical  allegory,  each  idea  is 
equally  agreeable  to  truth.  The  exterior  or  ostensible  image  is  not 
a  shadowy  colouring  of  the  interior  sense,  but  is  in  itself  a  reality ; 
and,  although  it  sustains  another  character,  it  does  not  wholly  lay 
aside  its  own.  As  every  allegory  is  a  representation  of  real  matters 
of  fact  under  feigned  names  and  characters,  it  must  be  subjected  to 
a  twofold  examination.  We  must  first  examine  the  immediate 
representation,  and  then  consider  what  other  representation  it  was 
intended  to  excite.  Now,  in  most  allegories  the  immediate  repre- 
sentation is  made  in  the  form  of  a  narrative ;  and  since  it  is  the 
object  of  an  allegory  to  convey  a  moral,  not  an  historical  truth,  the 
narrative  itself  is  commonly  fictitious.  The  immediate  representa- 
tion is  of  no  further  value,  than  as  it  leads  to  the  ultimate  representa- 
tion. It  is  the  application  or  moral  of  the  allegory  which  constitutes 
its  worth.' 

In  explaining  the  Scripture  parable,  Trench  points  out  how  it 
differs  from  the  allegory,  and  so  is  led  to  give  his  idea  of  the  allegory. 
*  In  the  allegory  an  interpenetration  of  the  thing  signifying  and  the 
thing  signified  finding  place,  the  qualities  and  properties  of  the  first 
are  attributed  to  the  last,  and  the  two  are  thus  blended  together, 
instead  of  being  kept  quite  distinct,  and  placed  side  by  side,  as  is 
the  case  in  the  parable.  Thus  John  xv.  1-8,  "  I  am  the  true  vine," 
etc.,  is  throughout  an  allegory ;  and  there  are  two  allegories  scarcely 
kept  apart  from  one  another,  John  x.  1-16  ;  the  first,  in  which  the 
Lord  sets  Himself  forth  as  the  Door,  the  second,  as  the  Good 
Shepherd  of  the  sheep.  So  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God"  is  an 
allegorical,  "He  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter"  a  parabolical, 
expression.  The  allegory  needs  not,  as  the  parable,  an  interpretation 
to  be  brought  to  it  from  without,  since  it  contains  its  interpretation 
within  itself;  and,  as  the  allegory  proceeds,  the  interpretation  pro- 
ceeds hand  in  hand  with  it,  or,  at  least,  never  falls  far  behind  it. 


556      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

And  thus  the  allegory  stands  to  the  metaphor,  as  the  more  elaborate 
and  long  drawn  out  composition  of  the  same  kind,  in  the  same 
relation  that  the  parable  does  to  the  isolated  comparison  or  simile. 
And  as  many  proverbs  are  concise  parables,  in  like  manner  many 
also  are  brief  allegories.  For  instance,  the  following,  which  is  an 
Eastern  proverb,  "  This  world  is  a  carcase,  and  they  who  gather 
round  it  are  dogs,"  does,  in  fact,  interpret  itself  as  it  goes  along,  and 
needs  not,  therefore,  that  an  interpretation  be  brought  to  it  from 
without ;  while  it  is  otherwise  with  the  proverb  spoken  by  our  Lord, 
"  Wheresoever  the  carcase  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered 
together ;"  this  gives  no  help  to  its  own  interpretation  from  within, 
and  is  a  saying,  of  which  the  darkness  and  difficulty  have  been 
abundantly  witnessed  by  the  very  different  interpretations  of  it  which 
have  been  proposed.  ...  A  parable  differs  from  an  allegory,  com- 
paring as  it  does  one  thing  with  another,  but,  at  the  same  time,  pre- 
serving them  apart  as  an  inner  and  an  outer,  and  not  transferring,  as 
does  the  allegory,  the  properties,  and  qualities,  and  relations  of  one 
to  the  other.' 

J.  Farrar,  in  *  Bib.  and  Theo.  Dictionary,'  refers  to  this  passage, 
and  says  :  *  The  Apostle  .says  :  "  Which  things  " — events  in  the 
history  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael — "  are  an  allegory  " — that  is,  "  have 
been  allegorized.1'  He  does  not  mean  that  this  portion  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  an  allegory,  which  ordinarily  means  a  fiction,  but  that 
these  facts  are  allegorically  applied.  An  allegory  is  a  continued 
metaphor,  or  a  series  of  metaphors,  in  one  or  more  sentences.  The 
term  "  allegory  "  denotes  a  representation  of  one  thing,  which  is 
intended  to  excite  the  representation  of  another  thing.  There  are, 
then,  two  representations — the  immediate  and  the  ultimate ;  and  the 
former  is  only  important,  as  it  leads  to  the  latter.  It  is  the  applica- 
tion of  the  allegory  which  constitutes  its  value.  The  immediate 
representation  is  understood  from  the  words,  and  with  them  we  are 
concerned ;  the  ultimate  must  be  gathered  from  the  things  signified 
by  the  words.' 

G.  G.  Findlay,  writing  on  the  fourth  chapter  of  Galatians,  says  : 
'Allegory  was  the  instrument  of  Rabbinical  and  Alexandrine 
Scripturists,  an  infallible  device  for  extracting  the  pre-determined  sense 
from  the  letter  of  the  sacred  text.  .  .  .  But  Paul's  allegory,  and  that 
of  Philo  and  the  Allegorical  School,  are  very  different  things,  as 
widely  removed  as  the  "  words  of  truth  and  soberness  "  from  the 
intoxications  of  a  mystical  idealism.  With  Paul  the  spiritual  sense 
of  Scripture  is  based  on  the  historical,  is,  in  fact,  the  moral  content 
and  import  thereof;  for  he  sees  in  history  a  continuous  manifestation 


A  MYSTICAL  ALLEGORY.  557 

of  God's  will.  With  the  Allegorists  the  spiritual  sense,  arrived  at  by 
a  priori  means,  replaces  the  historical,  destroyed  to  make  room  for 
it.  The  Apostle  points  out  in  the  story  of  Hagar  a  spiritual  intent, 
such  as  exists  in  every  scene  of  human  life  if  we  had  eyes  to  see  it, 
something  other  than  the  literal  relation  of  the  facts,  but  nowise  alien 
from  it.  Here  lies  the  difference  between  legitimate  and  illegitimate 
allegory.  The  utmost  freedom  may  be  given  to  this  employment  of 
the  imagination,  so  long  as  it  is  true  to  the  moral  of  the  narrative 
which  it  applies.  In  principle  the  Pauline  allegory  does  not  differ 
from  the  type.  In  the  type  the  correspondence  of  the  sign  and  thing 
signified  centres  in  a  single  figure  or  event ;  in  such  an  allegory  as 
this  it  is  extended  to  a  group  of  figures  and  a  series  of  events.  But 
the  force  of  the  application  depends  on  the  actuality  of  the  original 
story,  which  in  the  illicit  allegory  is  matter  of  indifference. 

(  "  Which  things  are  allegorized  " — so  the  Apostle  literally  writes 
in  verse  24 — made  matters  of  allegory.  The  phrase  intimates,  as 
Bishop  Lightfoot  suggests,  that  the  Hagarene  episode  in  Genesis 
(xvi.  ;  xxi.  1-21)  was  commonly  interpreted  in  a  figurative  way.  The 
Galatians  had  heard  from  their  Jewish  teachers  specimens  of  this 
popular  mode  of  exposition.  Paul  will  employ  it,  too  ;  and  will  give 
his  own  reading  of  the  famous  story  of  Ishmael  and  Isaac.  Philo 
of  Alexandria,  the  greatest  allegorist  of  his  day,  has  expounded  the 
same  history.  These  eminent  interpreters  both  make  Sarah  the 
mother  of  the  spiritual  Hagar  of  the  worldly  offspring ;  both  point 
out  how  the  barren  is  exalted  over  the  fruitful  wife.  So  far,  we  may 
imagine,  Paul  is  moving  on  the  accepted  lines  of  Jewish  exegesis. 
But  Philo  knows  nothing  of  the  correspondence  between  Isaac  and 
Christ,  which  lies  at  the  back  of  the  Apostle's  allegory.  And  there 
is  this  vital  difference  of  method  between  the  two  divines,  that 
whereas  Paul's  comparison  is  the  illustration  of  a  doctrine  proved  on 
other  grounds — the  painting  which  decorates  the  house  already  built 
(Luther) — with  the  Alexandrine  idealist  it  forms  the  substance  and 
staple  of  his  teaching. 

'  Under  this  allegorical  dress  the  Apostle  expounds  once  more  his 
doctrine,  already  inculcated,  of  the  difference  between  the  Legal  and 
Christian  State.  The  former  constitutes,  as  he  now  puts  the  matter, 
a  bastard  sonship  like  that  of  Ishmael,  conferring  only  an  external 
and  provisional  tenure  in  the  Abrahamic  inheritance.  It  is  con- 
trasted with  the  spiritual  sonship  of  the  true  Israel  in  the  following 
respects  :  It  is  a  state  of  nature  as  opposed  to  grace :  of  bondage  as 
opposed  to  freedom ;  and,  further,  it  is  temporary,  and  soon  to  be 
ended  by  the  Divine  decree.' 


558      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 
Because  of  the  Angels. 

i  COR.  xi.  10  (Rev.  Ver.)  :  'For  this  cause  ought  the  woman  to  have  a  sign  of 
authority  on  her  head,  because  of  the  angels.' 

Difficulty. — No  other  passage  even  suggests  that  the  angels  bear 
any  special  relation  to  married  women. 

Explanation. — This  passage  is  chosen  for  treatment  as  a  speci- 
men of  not  a  few  New  Testament  expressions  which  depend  for  their 
meanings  upon  lost  associations.  We  do  not  regard  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  precisely  as  the  Jews  did  :  and  we  have  no  such  surround- 
ing of  legend  and  tradition  as  they  had.  We  do  not  even  use  terms 
with  the  same  meanings,  and  it  is  often  difficult  for  the  antiquary 
to  discover  the  lost  connotations. 

The  subject  which  the  Apostle  is  here  dealing  with  is  the  appro- 
priateness of  a  woman  appearing  in  public  only  with  a  covering  on  her 
head.  But  that  is  clearly  a  matter  of  custom  and  sentiment,  which 
may  change  for  different  nations,  and  different  periods.  The  only 
natural  basis  the  Apostle  can  find  for  his  advice  is  that  woman  is 
provided  with  long  hair,  which  is  a  kind  of  covering  for  the  head. 
The  Apostle  had  to  deal  with  a  practical  difficulty  which  had  arisen 
in  the  Corinthian  Church.  The  converted  women  had  taken  up  the 
idea  that  sex-distinctions  were  abolished  in  Christ.  They  claimed  to 
do  all  that  the  men  did  in  Church-life  ;  and  they  took  upon  them- 
selves to  appear  unveiled  in  the  Christian  assemblies.  St.  Paul  tells 
the  women  that  they  should  not  affect  any  attire  which  was  felt  to  be 
unbecoming.  They  had  no  right  to  defy  those  established  rules  of 
decorum  that  were  rooted  in  the  feelings  of  the  country. 

F.  W.  Robertson  says  :  *  The  veiled  head  is  a  symbol  of  depen- 
dence, and  a  token  also  of  modesty,  for  to  pray  unveiled  was  to  insult 
all  the  conventional  feelings  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  Here  let .  us 
distinguish  between  rules  and  principles :  of  course,  there  is  no  eternal 
rule  in  this  :  it  cannot  be  a  law  for  ever  that  man  should  appear 
habited  in  one  way,  and  woman  in  another,  and  it  is  valuable  to  us 
only  so  far  as  a  principle  is  involved.  .  .  .  The  use  of  the  veil  was 
a  representation  and  symbol  of  dependence.  It  is  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul  that,  as  Christ  is  dependent  on  God,  and  man  is  dependent 
on  Christ,  so  is  woman  dependent  on  man.  St.  Paul  perceived  that 
the  law  of  Christian  equality  was  quite  consistent  with  the  vast 
system  of  subordination  running  through  the  universe.  .  .  .  He 
distinguishes  between  inferiority  and  subordination,  that  each  sex 
exists  in  a  certain  order,  not  one  as  greater  than  the  other,  but  both 
great  and  right  in  being  what  God  intended  them  to  be.' 


BECAUSE  OF  THE  ANGELS.  559 

Archdeacon  Farrar,  in  the  '  Pulpit  Commentary/  says  of  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse :  '  The  only  question  worth  asking  is  why  the 
word  exousia  (power,  authority)  had  come  at  Corinth,  or  in  the 
Corinthian  Church,  to  be  used  for  a  'veil'  or  'covering'?  The 
simplest  answer  is  that  just  as  the  word  '  kingdom  '  in  Greek  may  be 
used  for  '  a  crown  '  (compare  regno  as  the  name  of  the  pope's  tiara), 
so  authority  may  mean  a  sign  of  authority  (Revised  Version),  or  '  a 
covering,  in  sign  that  she  is  under  the  power  of  her  husband' 
(Authorized  Version,  margin).  The  margin  of  the  Revised  Version, 
'authority  over  her  head,'  is  a  strange  suggestion.  Some  have 
explained  the  word  of  her  own  true  authority,  which  consists  in 
accepting  the  rule  of  her  husband  ;  but  it  probably  means  '  a  sign  of 
her  husband's  authority  over  her.'  Similarly,  the  traveller  Chardin 
says  that  in  Persia  the  women  wear  a  veil,  in  sign  that  they  are 
'  under  subjection.'  If  so,  the  best  comment  on  the  word  may  be 
found  in  the  exquisite  lines  of  Milton,  which  illustrate  the  passage  in 
other  ways  also  : 

'  She,  as  a  veil,  down  to  the  slender  waist 
Her  unadorned  golden  tresses  wore  .  .  . 
As  the  vine  curves  her  tendrils,  which  implied 
Subjection,  but  required  with  gentle  sway, 
And  by  her  yielded,  by  him  best  received.' 

The  brief  comment  of  Luther  sums  up  all  the  best  of  the  many 
pages  which  have  been  written  on  the  subject.  He  says  that  exousia 
means  '  the  veil  or  covering,  by  which  one  may  see  that  she  is  under 
her  husband's  authority'  (Gen.  iii.  16). 

Professor  Agar  Beet  asks  :  '  What  is  the  authority  which,  by  wear- 
ing a  veil,  woman  carries  on  her  head  ?  Not  a  liberty  of  action  or 
control  over  others  which  she  herself  exercises ;  for  of  such  we  have 
no  mention  in  the  whole  passage.  The  only  authority  here  is  that  to 
which,  by  the  ordinance  of  the  Ruler  of  the  universe,  she  is  subject. 
And  this  authority,  looked  upon  as  representing  the  great  abstract 
principle  of  authority,  which  is  the  law  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  she 
ought  to  bear  upon  her  head.  But  how  can  she  do  this  ?  By 
wearing  on  her  head  the  distinctive  dress  which  proclaims  that  she 
belongs  to  the  subordinate  sex,  and  that  she  accepts  her  divinely 
appointed  position ;  for  of  the  authority  to  which  she  bows,  her 
headdress  is  a  visible  embodiment.' 

This  will  prepare  us  to  understand  the  second  sentence  of  the 
verse,  '  Because  of  the  angels.'  Terlullian  suggests  that  the  reference 
may  be  to  the  bad  angels,  who  might  take  advantage  of  unveiled 
women.  '  In  the  opinion  and  traditions  of  Oriental  Jews,  a  woman 
is  liable  to  injury  from  the  shedim,  if  she  appears  in  public  unveiled ; 


560      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 

and  these  evil  spirits  are  supposed  to  delight  in  the  appearance  of 
unveiled  women.'  '  The  verse  may,  however,  mean  (in  accordance 
with  the  Jewish  belief  of  the  day)  that  good  angels,  being  under  the 
possibility  of  falling  from  the  same  cause  as  their  evil  brethren,  fly 
away  at  once  from  the  presence  of  unveiled  women.  Thus  Khadijah 
tested  that  the  visitant  of  her  husband  Mohammed  really  was  the 
angel  Gabriel,  because  he  disappeared  the  moment  she  unveiled  her 
head '  (Farrar). 

Beet  has  the  following  explanation  :  '  But  is  there  any  aspect  in 
which  the  angels  furnish  to  women  a  real  motive  for  veiling  their 
faces  at  public  worship?  I  think  there  is.  The  distinction  of  sex 
is  so  radical  and  so  important  that  it  ought  to  be  clearly  set  forth  in 
the  dress  of  the  sexes.  This  is  taught  by  a  genuine  human  instinct, 
which  has  found  expression,  in  every  age  and  country,  in  the 
different  dress  of  men  and  women.  And  the  same  true  instinct  con- 
demns as  shameful  all  attempts  of  women  to  make  themselves  look 
like  men,  either  by  cutting  their  hair,  or  by  disowning  a  woman's 
headdress.  Now  every  correct  instinct  is  strengthened  by  the  felt 
presence  of  the  good.  A  good  man  before  our  eyes  gives  fresh  force 
to  every  good  principle  in  our  hearts.  This  influence  is  felt  and 
acknowledged  in  various  ways  by  all  men,  good  and  bad.  Therefore 
St.  Paul,  after  appealing  in  verse  6  to  his  readers'  instinctive  sense  of 
the  impropriety  of  that  which  he  condemns,  and  after  supporting  his 
appeal  by  tracing  this  instinctive  sense  to  its  source  in  the  original 
constitution  of  the  sexes,  now  supports  it  further  by  bringing  his  fair 
readers  into  the  presence  of  superhuman  goodness.  He  appeals  to 
the  common  Jewish  teaching  that  in  the  worship  of  God's  people  the 
angels  of  heaven  join.  This  teaching  commends  itself  to  us  at  once. 
If  angels  take  interest  in  men,  and  afford  them  invisible  help,  surely 
they  will  take  most  interest  in  us  in  those  moments  when  we  are 
nearest  to  God.  Without  hesitation  we  may  say  that  when  God's 
people  on  earth  bow  together  to  their  Father  in  heaven,  they  join 
the  worship  of  the  one  great  family  of  earth  and  heaven.  And  no 
thought  is  more  powerful  than  this  to  repress  all  impropriety  in  public 
worship,  by  strengthening  every  true  instinct  of  propriety.  St.  Paul 
knew  that  he  had  an  ally  in  a  deeply-seated  and  divinely-planted 
instinct ;  and  to  his  appeal  to  this  instinct  he  gives  force  by  drawing 
aside  the  veil  which  hides  from  our  view  the  great  company  of 
heavenly  worshippers,  that  his  readers  may  feel  the  influence  of  the 
presence  of  these  celestial  companions.' 

Chrysostom  expounds  the  passage  thus :  '  If  thou  despisest  the 
man,  respect  the  angels.' 


INDEX. 


INDEX    OF    TOPICS. 


PAGE 

Abel  and  Cain  Offerings        -  -  429 

\bijah's  Mother    -         -         -  -  138 

\bomination  of  Desolation    -  -  388 

\dullam,  Identification  of    -  -  333 

\ge,  The  Picture  of  Old       -  -  530 

Ahasuerus,  Identification  of  -  -     93 

Ahaz,  Assyria  helping  -         -  -  137 

Allegory,  A  Mystical    -         -  -  554 

Angel-Charge                 -  437 

Angel-Worship              -  469 

Angels  of  Book  of  Daniel      -  -  445 

Angels,  Because  of  the  -         -  -  558 

Ants  Storing  their  Food        -  -  347 

Appeal  to  God,  An  Egyptian  -  442 

Araunah,  Identification  of    -  -  103 

Argob,  Cities  of  -         -         -  -  317 

Ark  of  God  with  Saul's  Army  -  in 

Ark,  Later  Contents  of         -  -  397 

Arrows  Bright,  Making         -  -  266 

Ass's  Jaw,  Water  from-         -  -  515 

Assyrian  Invasion,  The  First  -     65 

Astrologers,  Chaldsean  -         -  -  248 

Astronomy,  Ancient      -         -  -  243 

Atonement,  Phinehas'  -         -  -  457 

Babel,  Scattering  from  -         -  -  398 

Balaam's  Prophecy        -         -  -     48 

Balaam,  the  Magician   -         -  -  257 
Baptism  and  First  Passover,  Events 

between 224 

Baptism,  Date  of  Our  Lord's  -  226 

Bear  of  Palestine  -         -         -  -  351 

Beast,  Spirit  of  the        -         -  -  430 

Beasts,  Changed  Nature  of  the  -  355 

Bees  in  Lion's  Carcase  -         -  -  350 

Belshazzar,  Identification  of  -  -  27 
Bethshemesh,  Number  smitten  at  -  411 
Birth,  Date  of  Our  Lord's  - 
Blood  is  the  Atonement 
Body  of  Moses,  Dispute  over 
Bodies,  Burning  Dead  - 
Boils,  Egyptian  - 
Brethren,  The  Lord's  - 


Cain  ?  Who  was  there  t  o  find 
3ain  and  Abel  Offerings 


-  213 

-  435 

-  475 

-  208 

-  369 

-  429 


[PAGE 

Calamities,    Heavenly    Bodies    as 

figures  of  Earthly  -  -  -  272 

Calves,  Jeroboam's  Two  -  -  118 
Canaanites  not  Native  Races  of 

Palestine 373 

Captivity,  Kings  associated  with 

the  -  ...  127 

Carmel  Sacrifice  ?  Whence  came 

Water  for  the  -  -  -  -  330 

Cart,  God  pressed  as  a  Loaded  -  527 

Census  of  Quirinius  -  -  -  222 

Children,  Slaughter  of  Bethlehem  223 

Colony,  Philippi  as  a  -  -  -  189 

Commands,  Necessity  for  Positive  464 

Coney  and  Hare  chewing  the  Cud  343 

Council,  The  First  Christian  -  180 

'  Create,'  The  Senses  of  the  Word  503 

Cross  as  a  Symbol  -  -  -  552 

Crucifixion,  History  of  -  -  198 

Dans,  The  Two    ....  327 
Darius  the  Median         -         -         -     40 
David,  Saul's  and  Abner's  Ignor- 
ance of     -                  -         -         -     84 
David  and  the  Philistine  Images    -  136 
David's  Lion  and  Bear          -         -     59 
David's    Magnanimity,    Two   Ac- 
counts of  -         -         -         -         -     62 
Day,'  The  Expression,  'Unto  this     501 
Days  of  Creation  ...         -  520 
Dead  Child,  Elisha  restoring  a      -  291 
Death,  Early  Conceptions  of          -  449 
Desire,'  '  Unto  thee  shall  be  his    -  489 
Devil    Possessions    viewed   Medi- 
cally           296 

Devils,  Sacrifice  unto  -  -  -  424 
Dew,  Morning  Cloud  and  Early  -  358 
Disease,  An  Incurable  -  -  -  277 
,,  Job's  ....  284 
Dreams,  Communications  through  271 
Dust,  Panting  after  the  -  -512 

Eagle's  Ways  with  Young  -  -  346 
Ears,'  '  Opening  the  -  -  -  498 
Ebal,  Joshua's  March  to  -  -  69 


562      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


PAGE 

Ebenezer,  Site  of-  -  -  -  146 
Ed,  Altar  of  ....  131 
Egypt,  The  River  of  -  -  324 

Election,  The  Divine  -  -  -  471 
'  Eloi '  of  David  -  -  -  -  536 
Ephraimites,  Number  of  Slain  -  409 
Esau's  Wives  -  -  -  -  43 
Eternal  Life  ....  460 
Evil,  God  creating  -  -  -  443 

Face,  A  Cloth  on  the  -         -         -  292 
Father  ?'  '  Who  is  their          -         -  500 
Fatherhood  of  God  in  Old  Testa- 
ment      453 

Feelings  to  God,  Transference  of 

Human  -----  542 
Feet,  Disease  of  the  -  -  -  284 
Fire  Unquenched  -  -  -  518 
Fire  of  God  -  -  -  -  -  523 
Flood,  Extent  of  the  -  -  -  313 
Food  of  Humanity  before  and  after 

Flood 385 

Food,  Angels'       -  549 

Foods,  Clean  and  Unclean  -  -  337 
Foot,  Watering  with  the  -  -  506 
'For  Ever,'  The  Old  Testament 

term          .....  452 

Genealogies,  The  Two  -         -  -  210 

Geology,  Mosaic  Creation  and  -  305 

Giant  Races,  Ancient    -         -  -  361 

Gleaning  Better  than  Vintage  -  490 

God,  The  Fire  of  523 

Goel,  Law  of  the  -         -         -  -  70 

Goel,  Job's  Confidence  in  his  -  546 

Golgotha,  Situation  of  -         -  -  183 

Goliath,  Identification  of  -  -  18 
Goliath's  Head  and  Armour?  What 

became  of  -  55 

Hainan's  Plot        -         -  -  -     80 

Hart  and  Waterbrooks  -  -  483 

Heaven,  Outmost  Parts  of  -  -  269 

Hell  for  Wicked  Nations  -  -  433 

Hermon,  Names  for      -  -  -  312 

Herod  Agrippa,  Fate  of  -  -  174 

Herodians,  The    -         -  -  -  204 

Hittites,  Kings  of  the   -  -  -     22 

Hormah,  Identification  of  -  -  336 

Idolatry,  Nature  of  Solomon's  -129 
Image,  The  Divine,  in  Man  -  419 

Immortality,  Psalmist  Hopes  of  -  422 
Infancy,  Different  Records  of  our 

Lord's 187 

Ishbosheth's  Reign,  Time  of          -  410 
Israel,  Assyrian  Location  of  Cap- 
tive   109 

Israelites,  Syrian  Origin  of  the       -  378 


James,  Two  Apostles  named 
Jealousy  applied  to  God 


-  463 


PAGE 

Jehoshaphat's  Men  of  War    -         -  414 

Jericho,  Fulfilment  of  Curse  on     -  31 

Jerusalem,  The  First  Siege  of        -  97 

„          David's  Siege  of  -         -99 

„          Our  Lord's  last  Arrival 

at     -         -         -         -         -         -  216 

John's  Imprisonment  and  Death, 

Dates  of 188 

Jordan  Memorials  -  -  -  90 

Joseph's  Land  Scheme  -  -  -  366 

Judah,  The  Sceptre  in  -  -  -  89 

Judas  Iscariot,  The  Fate  of  -  -  172 

Judicial  Deadness  ...  465 

Kingship,  Mosaic  Preparations  for  94 

Kinsman  Duties    -         -         -         -  389 

Kirjath-Sepher,  The  Book -Town  -  116 

'Kiss the  Son,'  The  Command  to  -  492 

Labourers,  Solomon's  forced          -  123 

Lamech's  Boasting        -         -         -  510 

Law,  Hilkiah's  Book  of  the  -         -  112 

Leprosy,  The  Infection  of     -         -  279 

Leprosy  in  Clothing  and  Houses   -  286 

Life,  Eternal         -         ...  460 

Light  before  the  Sun     -         -         -  244. 

Lots,  Jehovah's  People  casting       -  261 

Mahanaim    -         -         -         -         -  310 

Males,  Number  of  First-born         •  408 

Man,  Spirit  of  430 

Medicine  of  our  Lord's  Time  -  294 
Melchizedek,  Mysterious  Figure  of  52 

Mercy  is  Just  Dealing  -         -         -  448 

Messiah,  Champion  Figure  of       -  539 

Mice,  Plague  of    -         -         -         -  353 

Mining  Allusions  in  Job         -         -  381 

Mixt  Multitude,  Influence  of         -  82 

Moab  and  Ammon,  Origin  of        -  60 

Molech  and  his  Rites    -         -         -  470 

Monotheist,  Cyrus  no   -         -         -  121 

Moon,  Influence  of  the          -         -  303 

Music,  Medicinal  Value  of    -         -  298 

Naaman's  Compromise          -         -  143 

Name  of  God,  The  '  I  am  '   -         -  487 

Nazareth,  Our  Lord's  Visits  to       -  228 

Nebuchadnezzar,  Mania  of  -  -  289 
Nimrod,  Scripture  Figure  of-  '77 
Noah's  Ark,  The  Resting-place  of  120 

'  None  shut  up,  or  left '                   -  524 

Original  Sin,  David's  Idea  of        -  427 

Parable,  Jotham's          -         -         -  532 

Partridge,  The  Ways  of  the  -         -  340 

Passover,  Time  for  Killing  the      -  33 

Passovers  in  Christ's  Ministry        -  218 

Perfectness,  Job's  -         -                  -  528 

Pharaoh  of  Abram's  Days      -         -  21 

„        who  advanced  Joseph       -  140 

„        who  knew  not  Joseph       -  86 


INDEX. 


563 


PAGE 

Pillar  of  Cloud  and  Fire  -  -  262 
Pit,  Bars  of  the  -  -  -  -  543 
Ploughman  and  Thresher,  Parable 

of 550 

Positive  Commands,  Necessity  for  -  464 
Power  over  the  Angel,  Jacob's  -  472 
Prayer,  Jonah's  -  -  -  544 

Pressed  as  loaded  Cart  -  -  -517 
Proselytes,  Baptizing  of  -  -  169 
Providence,  Judgments  in  order  of  46 

Races,  Distribution  of  -  -  -  391 

Rahab,  A  Name  for  Egypt  -  -  506 

Rahab's  Scarlet  Line    -  -  -  508 

Rainbow,  Appointment  of  -  254 
Red   Sea,   Crossing   and   Disaster 

at      -         -         -         -  -  -  325 

'  Revenge,'  applied  to  God  -  -  463 

Sacrifices  ?  Did  God  Command     -  434 

Saliva  as  a  Curative  Agent    -         -  295 

Samaria,  Assyrian  Colonists  of      -  133 

Sanhedrin,  History  of  the     -         -  202 

Satan,  Direct  Agency  of        -         -  450 

,,      Resisting  the  High  Priest    -  456 

,,      among  the  Sons  of  God      -  486 

Satan's  Proverb    -  495 

Saul's  Death,  Different  Accounts  of    98 

„      Court,  David's  Introduction 

to 150 

Saul's  Conversion,  Accounts  of      -  171 
„      Life     from     Conversion    to 

Ministry 178 

Saws  and  Harrows,  Under  -  -  156 
Scapegoat,  Various  Fates  of  -  -  128 
Seer,  Seeking  the  ^  -  -  -  274 
Sennacherib's  Calamity  -  -  37 
Serpent,  Curse  on  the  -  -  356 

Seventh-Day   Rest,    Institution  of 

the 438 

Shepherds,  Sentiments  of  Egyptians 

concerning         -         -         -         -     34 

Shishak,  Identification  of      -         -  105 

Shoes,  Iron  and  Brass  -         -         -  5I7 

4  Shut  up  or  left,  None  '  -  524 

Sin,  David's  Idea  of  Original         -  427 

,,    The  Unpardonable         -         -  474 

,,    with  a  Cart-rope    -         -         -  525 

So,  King  of  Egypt,  Indentification 

of 5° 


PAGE 

Sodom  ?  Does  the  Salt  Sea  cover 

the  Site  of  -  -  -  -  321 
Solomon,  Hiram's  Contract  with  -  101 
,,  as  Avenger  of  Blood  -  396 
Solomonic  Kingdom,  Limits  of  -  328 
Son  of  God,  A  Form  like  the  -  425 
Sons  of  God  and  Daughters  of 

Men  .....  371 
Soothsayers  -----  260 
Soul-Sin  ?  What  is  a  -  -  467 

Souls  going  to  Egypt  with  Jacob, 

Number  of  ...  406 

Species  in  Ark,  Preservation  of  -  376 
Spirit,  The  Holy,  in  Old  and  New 

Testaments  -  439 

Spirits,  Consulters  of  Familiar  -  268 
„  in  Prison  -  ...  454 
Stars  Fighting  -  264 

Stephen's  Speech,  Chronology  in  -  200 
Stones,  Listening  of  -  497 

Stoning,  History  of  Jewish  -  -  191 
Supper,  Precise  Date  of  the  Last  -  194 
Swine,  Ceremonial  Uncleanness  of  344 

Temple,  Solomon's  Ascent  to  the  -  138 

„        Date  of  Building  the        -  412 

Theocracy,  Dissatisfaction  with  the     74 

Thorn  in  the  Flesh,  Paul's     -         -  300 

Thunder     Clothing     the     Horse's 

Neck         .....  502 

Vapour,'  '  Concerning  the      -         -  534 

Uncircumcised,  Left  -  -  -  57 
Unicorn,  The  -  340 

Ur,  Identification  of  -         -  320 

Wars  of  the  Lord,  Book  of  the  -  384 
Water  out  of  His  Buckets  -  -  513 
Weeds  and  Thorns  following  on 


Man's  Culture  - 
Weeks,  Limits  of  the  Seventy 
Witch,  A     - 
Woman,  Origin  of 
Worm  Undying    - 

Years,  Forty  or  Four    - 

Zerubbabel,  Descendants  of  - 
Zion,  Stronghold  of 
Zipporah's  Exclamation 


-  379 

-  415 

-  251 

-  363 

-  518 

-  108 


-  154 

-  493 


INDEX    OF    TEXTS. 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 


GENESIS. 
CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

ii.  2,  3  

PAGE 
-438 

i.  I       - 

-  5°3 

ii.  4     - 

-     305 

Ul6    17 

'    464 

i.  5       - 

$  4V 

.      1  V,     J.  / 

H.  21     22        -           -           -           - 

-363 

i-  3>  *4 
i.  27     - 

•  419 

iii.  14  

^ 

-    356 

36- 


564      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


CHAPTER 

PAGE          CHAPTER 

PAGE 
„« 

iv.  3,  4 

-    429 

XXV.    II 
XXXV.    12 

DEUTERONOMY. 

iii.  4,  5          .... 
iii.  9     

-  457 
-    70 

-  317 
-  3J2 

iv.  23,  24 

3°9 
"  5*° 

vi.  4     - 

VI.    I,  2 

vi.  13  - 

301 

'  37i   , 
-  313 

501 

Cnfi 

viii.  4  - 

•  37° 

-    I2O 

-  •sSc 

-    500 

xviii.  ii 
xxvi.  5           .... 
xxx.  4  - 
xxxii.  ii        - 
xxxiii.  14 
xxxiii.  25      - 

JOSHUA, 
ii.  21    

iv.  9,  20        - 

v.  5      
viii.  35          .... 
xii.  6    - 

-2^ 
-378 
-269 
-    346 
-    303 
-    517 

-508 
-      90 

-    57 
-    69 
-  409 

3a5 

ix-  J3  

x.  8-10         -.-. 

x-  32    
xi.  8     - 
xi.  28  - 
xii.  15  
xiv.  14 
xiv.  18          .... 

•  254 
-     77 
-  39i 
-  398 
-  320 

-      21 
•    327 

-      52 

xix.  25          .... 
xix.  37,  38  - 
xxxii.  2 
xxxvi.  2,  3   - 

•  324 
-  321 
-     60 
-  3io 

-     43 

xviii.  6          -         .         .         - 

-  261 

xlvi.  26,  27  - 
xlvi.  34 
xlvii.  20 
xlix.  10 

EXODUS. 

i.  8      - 
iii.  8     

-  406 

-     34 
-  366 
-     89 

-     86 
•  373 

xxiv.  27 

JUDGES. 

i.  8       - 

I3I 

-  497 

-    97 

Jl 

viii.  2,  3       - 

^04 
-  490 

iii.  14  - 
iv.  24-26       - 

-  487 
-  493 

ix.  7     
xii.  6    
xiv.  8   

-  532 
-  409 
-  350 

ix.  II   - 

xii.  6    - 
xiii.  21  - 
xiv.  22,  28    - 
xxii.  18         -         -         -         - 

LEVITICUS, 
iv.  2     - 
xi   2     - 

-    2o2 

-    33 
-  262 

-  325 
-  251 

-  467 

-   3^7 

xv.  19  

RUTH. 

-  515 
-  780 

iv.  6-8-         -         ... 

I  SAMUEL, 
iv.  i 

joy 

-  389 

-  146 

xi.  5,  6 
xi.  7     ----- 
xiii.  46 
xiii.  47 
xiv.  34  

xvi.  21,  22     - 

xvii.  7 
xvii.  ii 

XX.   2      

NUMBERS, 
iii.  42,  43      - 

-  343 
-  344 
-  279 
-  286 
-  286 
-  128 
-  424 
-  435 
-  470 

-  408 
-     82 

vi.  5    - 

-  353 

viii.  7  
ix.  6     - 

X.    12     - 

xiv.  18  
xv.  29  - 
xvi.  16 
xvi.  21 
xvii.  4  
xvii.  34-36    - 
xvii.  37 
xvii.  54 
xvii.  55          .... 
xxi.  9   

-     74 
-  274 

-  500 
-  in 

-  542 
-  298 

-  150 
-     18 

-    59 
-  35i 

-    55 
-    84 
-    55 

xiv.  45 
xxi.  14 

:* 

xxiv.  7  -                   ... 

-  257 
-  513 

xxiv.  7          .... 

-  333 
-     62 

INDEX. 


565 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 
-       62 

EZRA. 

CHAPTER 

PACE 

Q8 

xxxi.  4 
xxxi.  12 

2  SAMUEL. 

i.  8-10-        -        -     -    • 
ii.  10    - 

-  395 

-    98 
-  410 
-    99 

ESTHER. 

-     93 

JOB. 

v* 

i.  6      

i.  8      

i     16      •                        ... 

-  486 
-  528 

v.  7 

V.  21     - 

-  136 

xii.  31  - 

-  156 
-  108 

ii.  4      -         -         -         -         - 

-  495 

xv.  7 

XXIV.  ID 
I  KINGS, 
ii.  31    ' 

-  103 
-396 

-   271 

ii.  7,  8  -         •    •    -        -        - 
ix.  7-9  - 

-  284 
-  243 

xvii.  16 
xix.  25 
xxxvi.  33      - 

-  543 
-  546 
-  534 

iii.  5 

-  128 

v.  9      - 
vi.  I     - 
vii.  19,  20    - 

ix.  20-22         -           - 

ix.  25,  26     - 

-    101 

-412 

-   46 
-  123 
-  46 

XXVIII.    I,  2    - 

-  381 

xxxix.  19               -         - 
PSALMS. 

-  502 

x.  5 

xi.  4     

xii.  28,  29     - 

-  129 
-  118 

•  433 

4 

xxii.  I  -         -      ... 

-  536 

jp 

xl.  6     -        -        -     '   • 

-  495 

xvi.  34 

4°3 

2  KINGS. 

«•  5    •       *       : 

-  427 

Ixii.  ii,  12  -      -  -     '  -         - 
Ixxxviii.  25  -         •     "  * 
Ixxxix.  10     •••"•• 

-  448 
-  549 
-  506 

iv.  34  

-  143 

V!.    ^ 

Vll.   O     - 

437 

xiv.  26          .... 

-   524                                      PROVERBS. 

xvii.  3,  5      - 

-    127 

ECCLESIASTES. 

jt/ 

xvii.  6  - 

-    109 

1    ... 

111.    14   ' 

-  4.30 

xvn.  33 

-    133        *"•  •" 

xix.  35 
xxii.  8  - 

I  CHRONICLES. 

*    37 

-    112 

ISAIAH. 

-  260 

V.   18     -       '    - 

vi.  10  - 
xi.  6     -         -        - 
xiii.  10 
xxviii.  24 
xlv.  7  - 

-  465 
-  355 
-  272 

-  443 

-  136 

2  CHRONICLES. 
V.   10     -           - 

-  397 

-  i?8 

xiii.  2  - 
xvi.  12          .... 

-  138 
-  284 

Ixvi.  24 
JEREMIAH. 

xvn.  14         .... 
xxi.  18  
xxviii.  2O      - 
xxxii.  21 

XXXV.  21 

-  414 
-  277 
-  137 
-    37 
-  442 

XVII.    II 

EZEKIEL. 
xxi.  21 

-  266 

566      HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFICULTIES. 


DANIEL. 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

ii.  7      - 

AMOS. 

PACK 
-    512 

iii.  25  - 
iv-  33  - 

-               -    425 
-               -    289 

27 

•  ls 

JONAH. 

527 

V.    JU 

•  31 
ix.  21  - 

-  445 

i.  2 
iii.  I     - 
TAMENT. 

CHAPTER 

i.  18,  19 
vii.  6    - 

NAHUM. 
ZECHARIAH. 

ACTS. 

•  544 
-  463 
-456 

PAGE 

xii.  II- 

HOSEA. 

vi.  4     - 

-    -$ 

-    -358 

xii.  3,  4 

MATTHEW. 

CHAPTER 

NEW  TES 

PAGE 

- 

-    2OO 

2Io 

ii.  22,  23      - 
iii.  13  - 
iv.  12,  13     - 
ix.  28  - 
x.  38    -         -         -         - 
xii.  31  - 
xiii.  53,  54    - 

22.) 
-             -    I87 
-    226 
-    224 
-             -296 
'    552 

-  474 
-  228 
Tcc 

vn.  59  - 
ix.  7     - 
xii.  2    - 
xii.  23  - 
xv  6    - 

- 

191 

-    I?I 

-    205 

-    174 

-  180 

xv.  13  - 
xvi.  12 

. 

-  205 

159 

xxvi.  14 

xiv.  3   - 
xxiii.  15 
xxvi.  3  - 

-         -  169 

-   202 

ROMANS. 

-  171 

xxvi.  17 

-    194 

I    CORINTHIANS. 

•  47  * 
ccR 

xxvii.  33 
xxvii.  35 

MARK. 

-           '    I83 
-           -    198 

xii.  7    - 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

-  555 
-  300 

iii.  6     -         - 
v.  26    - 
vi.  i     - 

-   204 
'    294 
-   228 

i.  15-18 

GALATIANS. 

vi.  ^     - 

-    208 

-  178 

xi.  i     - 

LUKE, 

-  216 

COLOSSIANS. 

-  554 

I  PETER. 

409 

ii.  39    - 
iii.  22  - 
iv.  16  - 

JOHN. 

-     .  187 

-    210 
-   228 

-  218 

ii.  25    - 
verse  Q 

I  JOHN. 
JUDE. 

•  454 
-  460 

-  47"; 

ix.  6               - 

-    2CK 

Elliot  Stock,  Paternoster  Row,  London. 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


1956 LI 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(Bl39s22)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


371547 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


